Labor & Employment Law Blog

On April 17, 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision which will make it easier for employees to establish discrimination under Title VII of the U.S Civil Rights Act of 1964. In the case of Muldrow v. City of St. Louis (USSC Case No. 22-193), the Court held that an employee need only show that an employment action brought about "some harm to an identifiable term or condition of employment," as opposed to "materially significant disadvantage” in those terms or conditions. The Court expressly acknowledged that this is a less burdensome standard than those which had been adopted by federal appellate courts in the past, and that "many cases will come out differently" under this new standard. 

As an update to our previous post on the Fast Food Industry Minimum Wage (A.B. 1228:  Implications for Exempt Employees in the Fast Food Industry), on March 26, 2024, Governor Newsom signed Assembly Bill (AB) 610 which amends the definition of “fast food restaurant” to exempt restaurants in airports, hotels, theme parks, museums, event centers, and other locations from the Fast Food Council requirements, which took effect April 1, 2024.

Last year, Governor Newsom signed AB 1228, which repealed the FAST Recovery Act but established a modified version of the Fast Food Council (Council) through January 1, 2029. Importantly, the bill set forth minimum wage increases for fast food restaurant employees, with an increase to a minimum wage of $20.00 per hour for such employees effective April 1, 2024. 

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. 

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.