• Posts by April Szabo
    Posts by April Szabo
    Senior Associate

    April Szabo focuses her practice on employment matters, with an emphasis on practical, cost-effective client counseling and litigation. She specializes in providing clients with Human Resources guidance, including wage/hour ...

With the close of the California legislative season, there are a variety of employment law bills which will become law on January 1, 2025. Golden State employers should be aware that several of these new laws necessitate updates to employment policies and handbooks. Specifically:

Sexual Violence and Harassment Prevention Training for Janitorial Service Providers Goes Into Effect

As employers of janitorial service providers already know, the Property Services Workers Protection Act (AB 1978), enacted in 2016, established a registration program for janitorial service employers and biennial “in-person” sexual violence and harassment prevention training requirements. This was followed by the passage of AB 547 in 2019, which further clarified the sexual violence and harassment prevention training requirements under AB 1978. This training created obligations for janitorial service providers in addition to the sexual harassment training required by the State of California under AB 1825. 

While legislation regarding sexual violence and harassment prevention training was passed in 2019, the Labor Commissioner’s office did not establish regulations for the training until July 2020.  However, as we know, in-person training was not possible at of that time due to the pandemic, and the training requirement was suspended. 

With the start of the holiday season comes the inevitable question for employers: What are we going to do for the holiday party?  Perhaps the only positive note from the global pandemic of the past two years is the fact that HR departments were not faced with this question in 2020 due to stay-at-home orders and statewide COVID-19 surges.

Tags: Vaccines

According to various reports, federal OSHA will release proposed regulations regarding the vaccine mandate for employers with 100 or more employees in the near future.  While such guidance has been eagerly anticipated in the employment community for weeks, California employers will have to wait for further guidance from Cal/OSHA, which has jurisdiction over most California workplaces.  Cal/OSHA recently revised its FAQs as follows: 

On May 3, 2021, the California Department of Public Health issued guidance that fully vaccinated people do not need to quarantine if they are asymptomatic. COVID-19 Public Health Recommendations for Fully Vaccinated People.  On May 7, 2021, Cal/OSHA followed this lead and updated its COVID-19 Emergency Temporary Standards FAQs to reflect the change as follows:

On March 19, 2020, Governor Newsom signed Senate Bill 95 (“SB 95”), which requires employers with 26 or more employees to provide up to 80 hours of Supplemental Paid Sick Leave (“SPSL”) to eligible employees.  SB 95 takes effect March 29, 2021, and will expire on September 30, 2021.

Golden Years: California Rolls Out CalSavers Program to Boost Employee Retirement Savings

California announced the debut of its CalSavers program this month, designed to help employees save for retirement when their employers are not able to offer participation in another retirement program.

Parsing Piece Rate: California Appellate Court Validates Certified Tire’s Compensation System

California’s Fourth Appellate District, Division One, recently upheld a trial court judgment in favor of Certified Tire and Service Centers (“Certified Tire”), finding the company’s compensation system for its tire technicians complied with California’s wage and hour laws.

Ninth Circuit Confirms Employer Duties Regarding Meal Periods

On July 18, 2018, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals threw out a proposed class action lawsuit alleging that Taco Bell had violated California’s meal period and overtime requirements by requiring employees who purchased discounted meals to stay on the premises during their meal period.  The Court held that Taco Bell did not violate California law and affirmed an order granting summary judgment in favor of Taco Bell in a proposed class action suit titled Rodriquez v. Taco Bell Corp. (9th Cir. Case No. 16-15465).

Other AALRR Blogs

Recent Posts

Popular Categories

Contributors

Archives

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

Back to Page

Necessary Cookies

Necessary cookies enable core functionality such as security, network management, and accessibility. You may disable these by changing your browser settings, but this may affect how the website functions.

Analytical Cookies

Analytical cookies help us improve our website by collecting and reporting information on its usage. We access and process information from these cookies at an aggregate level.