Labor & Employment Law Blog

Lately, Deputy Labor Commissioners have been making unannounced visits to fast food stores in Los Angeles County to conduct audits. They arrive, sometimes alone, and sometimes in pairs, and ask for the manager.  The Deputy Labor Commissioners insist on conducting the audit while they are on the premises, and they have not been amenable to requests to come back on a date and time that is more convenient.  Below, please find useful information about the types of information that will be sought by the Deputy Labor Commissioners if you are subject to such an audit.

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. 

Employers have new accommodation obligations under the federal Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (“PWFA”), which became effective June 27, 2023.

The federal PWFA grants covered employees a right to reasonable accommodations related to pregnancy, childbirth, and related medical conditions, even if an employee’s condition does not qualify as a “disability” under the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”). Covered employers include those with more than 15 employees. Covered employees include those who are pregnant, recovering from childbirth, or have “related conditions.” Employers must adjust their policies, practices, and trainings to fulfill this new law’s mandates and avoid potential liability.

A recent NLRB decision in Lion Elastomers LLC, 372 NLRB 83 (May 1, 2023) restored prior Board law, which had used context-specific approaches to assess whether am employee’s outburst stripped him of protection under the National Labor Relations Act (the “Act”).  The decision by the current, three-member Democratic majority Board, makes it more difficult for employers to discipline or discharge employees who engage in profane, abusive or otherwise inappropriate conduct when done in connection with protected activity under the Act.  The restored law assesses employee conduct by applying highly amorphous setting-specific tests for the following various contexts: 

Tragically, California is reeling from the effects of two mass shootings in almost as many days, each one leaving in its wake shattered lives. These devastating events are on top of what is shaping up to be an especially violent year so far, with multiple mass shootings taking place less than one month into the year.

Given the current state of the economy, many employers are considering reductions in work hours and potential layoffs.  As businesses consider taking action to save money and prevent potential closure, they must do so carefully in order to manage and reduce risk of future litigation related to its actions.  This blog discusses the appropriate steps that a business must take when conducting a reduction in force (“RIF”).

Recent mass layoffs by tech companies, such as Twitter and Meta, have made headlines.  The massive layoff by Twitter on November 4, 2022 has already resulted in a lawsuit filed by former Twitter employees for violations of the federal Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification (“WARN”) Act.  The WARN Act requires certain employers to provide 60-day advance notice in cases of qualified plant closings and mass layoffs, allowing employees and their families with transition time to seek alternate employment or skills training.

In a recent article, the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”) reported that during the first six months of 2022, union representation petitions filed at the NLRB increased 58%—up to 1,892 from 1,197 during the first half of 2021.  (https://www.nlrb.gov/news-outreach/news-story/correction-first-three-quarters-union-election-petitions-up-58-exceeding).  The NLRB also reported that in 2021, 52% of petitions filed resulted in a victory for the union as compared to only 46% in 2020.  (https://www.nlrb.gov/reports/nlrb-case-activity-reports/representation-cases/intake/representation-petitions-rc).

On December 28, 2018, the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (“FMCSA”) issued a regulation under the Motor Carrier Safety Act of 1984 (49 U.S.C. § 31101, et seq.) that preempted California’s meal and rest break rules.  In doing so, the FMCSA decided that California may no longer enforce its meal and rest break laws with respect to drivers of property-carrying commercial motor vehicles.

In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, California passed the “Right to Recall” law, which requires employers in the building services and hospitality industries to offer laid-off employees an opportunity to be rehired before hiring a new employee to fill the position.  Now that most businesses and companies are ramping back up and returning to work, employers covered by the Right to Recall law must ensure compliance with California’s recall requirements or face steep penalties.