Labor & Employment Law Blog

In a blow to employers, the California Supreme Court unanimously held that a trial court judge cannot strike employee representative claims under the Labor Code’s Private Attorneys General Act (“PAGA”) on the basis that the claims are unwieldy or unmanageable.

On October 4, 2023, Governor Newsom signed SB 616, which expands paid sick leave entitlements for California employees effective January 1, 2024 by amending California Labor Code sections 245.5, 246, and 246.5.

The California Court of Appeal recently held that an employer loses the right to proceed in arbitration by failing to timely pay arbitration fees.  Employers that want to avoid cases being litigated before a jury need to ensure that all arbitrator fees are paid timely.

On July 31, 2023, California’s Director of Finance certified that the state’s minimum wage for all employers will increase to $16 per hour, effective on January 1, 2024. 

This announcement followed the completion of an annual review by the state’s Department of Finance in order to determine if the minimum wage must be increased due to inflation and, if so, to calculate the new minimum wage in accordance with state Labor Code requirements.

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.

The following cities and counties in California increased their minimum wage rates effective July 1, 2023:

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: 

Strike and picketing activity have historically enjoyed broad protection under labor law.  This has often left employers suffering property or other damage as a result of strikes or picketing without a meaningful remedy.  A new U.S. Supreme Court ruling stands to change that.  

Employers may sue unions when members fail to take “reasonable precautions” to protect their employer’s property, even when the union members are engaged in a strike. On June 1, 2023, the Supreme Court ruled in Glacier Northwest, Inc. v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters Local Union No. 174 (No. 21–1449), that an employer can bring state law claims for damages if union members engage in actions that expose their employer’s property to “foreseeable, aggravated, and imminent danger due to the sudden cessation of work.”

Plaintiff attorneys have deluged the courts with wage and hour class actions and PAGA lawsuits.  The first question an employee advocate asks of their potential client is, “can I see a pay stub?”  Instead of agreeing to represent employees for their harassment or wrongful termination claim, they convince the disgruntled ex-employee to act as a representative for a PAGA or class action for improper wage and hour practices.