Category: Legal Updates

For the first time this year, California is requiring employers to report not only their employees’ pay data but also pay data for individuals hired through labor contractors (i.e., staffing agencies). On an annual basis, these reports will be due the second Wednesday in May for the prior year.

On February 15, 2023, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals delivered another chapter in the arbitration agreement saga playing out in California and across the U.S. in a case called Chamber of Commerce of the U.S. v. Bonta.

As you find your footing in the new year, we wanted to send a quick reminder that it’s a great time to circle back to those best practices we mentioned.  Taking care of compliance issues in the first part of the year means you’ll have more time to focus on running your business.

As 2022 comes to a close, there are three things every business—large and small—should consider doing as part of their 2023 New Year’s resolutions.

An important decision came down from the California Supreme Court this week. The decision clarifies how employers should report meal and rest period premium payments. Failing to properly adhere to this new reporting standard may leave your business vulnerable to liability.   

The United States Supreme Court will soon hear a pivotal case impacting employers with non-exempt hourly employees. The case, Moriana v. Viking River Cruises, is set for oral argument on March 30, 2022, with a decision expected this summer.

The enforceability of arbitration agreements is one of the most litigated and appealed issues in employment law.  And now the appellate courts are at it again. On September 15, 2021, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in Chamber of Commerce v. Bonta, issued an important ruling on the enforceability of arbitration agreements. You might have heard about a law passed last year called AB 51, which prohibited California employers from forcing employees to sign arbitration agreements as a condition of employment. The bill even went so far as to make it a misdemeanor for employers to use mandatory arbitration agreements.

Last week, the California Supreme Court issued a decision in Ferra v. Loews Hollywood Hotel addressing what rate needs to be paid for meal and rest period premium payments.

The American Rescue Plan Act (“ARPA”) created a COBRA subsidy that requires employers to cover 100% of the employee’s cost of continuing group health coverage under insured and self-insured plans subject to COBRA for up to six months if an employee has lost coverage under their employer’s health care plan due to a reduction in hours or involuntary termination (for reasons other than gross misconduct) and elects COBRA continuation. The subsidy period is between April 1, 2021 and September 30, 2021 and does not lengthen the COBRA period. Who are already enrolled in COBRA; or who did not elect COBRA when it initially became available to them; or who elected COBRA initially but let the coverage lapse; who are not eligible for coverage under another employer’s group health plan or under Medicare.

In Donohue v. AMN Service, LLC, the Supreme Court held that “employers cannot engage in the practice of rounding time punches — that is, adjusting the hours that an employee has actually worked to the nearest preset time increment — in the meal period context. The meal period provisions are designed to prevent even minor infringements on meal period requirements, and rounding is incompatible with that objective.” Donohue v. AMN Services, LLC, No. S253677 (Cal., Feb. 25, 2021) at *1.