Skip to Content

California Law


  • May 2024 Preventing work-related deaths, injuries, and illnesses is critical for every employer. According to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (“OSHA”), since the federal Occupational Safety and Health Act (“OSH Act”) was signed into law, workplace reported deaths and injuries have significantly dropped. OSHA attributes this drop to the implementation by many businesses of an Injury and Illness Prevention Program (“IIPP”), which has helped prevent thousands of injuries worldwide and helps promote safety workplace culture. While the federal OSH Act does not require businesses to implement an IIPP, California does.  Therefore, it is important for employers to understand what […]

  •   May 2024 California employees have until July 1, 2024 to prepare and implement a Workplace Violence Prevention Plan (“WVPP”). In 2023, the California Senate introduced Senate Bill (SB) 553 for the purpose of reducing instances of workplace violence. SB 533 was signed into law in September 2023, which was then codified under Labor Code section 6401.9. The requirement for employers to prepare and implement a WVPP, however, were pushed back to July 1, 2024 in part to give Cal/OSHA time to develop a model program. Who Must Comply? Almost all California employer must comply with the requirements of Labor […]

  • With the close of the 2023 California legislative session, it is time to take a look at a few of the most important new and updated employment laws to ensure your business is prepared and compliant for the new year. Expanded Leave Protections SB 616 – Increase in Paid Sick Days Accrual and Use[1] Under existing law, employers are required to provide a minimum of 3 days (or twenty-four hours) of paid sick leave each year. Additionally, employees are entitled to accrue 6 days (or forty-eight hours) of paid sick leave which may be carried over from one year to […]

  •   August 2023   Dynamix Operations W. v. Superior Court and the subsequent passage of AB 5 represent seismic shifts in independent contractor rules in California.  We have previously provided details of these changes and their impacts. The Recent Evolution of Independent Contractor Laws; California Assembly Bill 5: Drastic Changes to the Healthcare Industry Are Certain and Immediate; California Motor Carriers Are Subject to AB-5; Ten Common Employment Law Violations; New California Employment Laws for 2022; California Employment Law Update 2021. But how do these laws impact the construction industry, and specifically the relationship between the prime contractor and subcontractors?  […]

  •   August 2023 On June 20, the United States Supreme Court denied a petition by Mobilize the Message LLC (“Mobilize”) challenging California’s test for classifying workers as independent contractors.  We have previously addressed how California made it significantly harder to classify workers as independent contractors when it passed Assembly Bill 5 (“AB 5”).  The Recent Evolution of Independent Contractor Laws; California Assembly Bill 5: Drastic Changes to the Healthcare Industry Are Certain and Immediate; California Motor Carriers Are Subject to AB-5; Ten Common Employment Law Violations; New California Employment Laws for 2022; California Employment Law Update 2021. Mobilize contracts with […]

  • July 2023 If you not a professor or attorney that LOVES civil procedure (and specifically personal jurisdiction), I highly recommend moving on to a different article! But if you fall into either of the above categories, you are in luck! In the latest appellate decision (Davis v. Cranfield Aerospace Solutions – June 23, 2023) from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on personal jurisdiction, the court delivers a gift to civil procedure law professors everywhere by walking through and reiterating the law on personal jurisdiction — i.e., whether a particular court has the power to exercise its authority over a particular […]

  •   May 2023 In a new appellate case published on May 5, 2023 (Dua v. Stillwater Insurance), the California Court of Appeal reminded insurance companies that an insurer’s duty to defend is broader than the duty to indemnify — much broader. In California, the duty to defend and the duty to indemnify are two important obligations that insurance companies have towards their policyholders. The key difference between the two duties is that the duty to defend is based on the potential for coverage, while the duty to indemnify depends on the actual outcome of the claim or lawsuit. Generally speaking, the duty […]

  • April 2023 Wage theft is undoubtedly a major issue in the United States.  According to a study by the Economic Policy Institute, wage theft could amount to $50 billion dollars per year owed to unpaid workers. To combat wage theft, California has passed onerous regulations and severe penalties for non-compliance.  These rules are often so burdensome that it can be difficult for even the most well-intentioned employers to comply with all requirements. The ramifications of non-compliance can be devastating to businesses as they may face crippling class-action lawsuits and Private Attorneys General Act (“PAGA”) claims. There are, however, steps that […]

  • February 2023   Although Senate Bill 688 did not receive much attention, this new California law effective January 1, 2023 takes away a creditor’s ability to secure a Confession of Judgment. Specifically, SB 688 amends Code of Civil Procedure section 1132(a) as follows, in pertinent part: (a) A judgment by confession is unenforceable and may not be entered in any superior court. The law does not apply retroactively and does not impact those confessions of judgment obtained or entered into before January 1, 2023. But the new law does have significant ramifications for credit professionals and financial executives that have […]

  •   January 2023 It is common practice for an employer to round employer timesheets, usually in 5, 10, or 15-minute increments, to help simplify payroll.  In 2012, the California Supreme Court approved the use of rounding in See’s Candy Shops, Inv. v. Superior Court.  The Court held that rounding was appropriate so longer as the process was neutrally applied.  For example, if an employer rounds time in 10-minute increments, the employer can round down for any time less than five minutes and round up for any time over five minutes.  In theory, therefore, the employer and employee should equally benefit […]