Labor & Employment Law Blog

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: 

Even seemingly minor wage and hour violations present a very real threat of crippling or potentially ruinous liability for California’s employers when assessed in class and Private Attorneys General Act (“PAGA”) representative action lawsuits. To make matters worse, plaintiffs are increasingly targeting individual owners and agents in addition to their corporate employer, which begs the question: When can individuals be held personally liable in wage and hour lawsuits? 

Seventeen years ago, in 2004, the California Legislature enacted the Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (“PAGA”).  Appropriately dubbed a “bounty hunter” law, PAGA authorizes any current or former “aggrieved” employee of a California employer to file suit to seek statutory penalties for essentially any violation of the California Labor Code together with attorney’s fees, hence the incentive for plaintiff attorneys to bring such cases.  Specifically, under PAGA a current or former employee who is “aggrieved” by a violation of the California Labor Code can seek in addition to damages and liquidated damages, civil penalties on the employee’s behalf and on behalf of all other similarly “aggrieved” (i.e., affected) current and former employees.  The recoverable civil penalties are up to $100 per employee per pay period for an initial violation and $200 per employee per pay period for each subsequent violation, plus attorney’s fees and litigation costs.  When such penalties are awarded, the plaintiff current or former employee along with all other similar “aggrieved” employee will receive 25% of the penalties together with their attorney’s fees as a “bounty,” with the balance of the penalties payable to a State agency known as the California Labor and Workforce Development Agency.  Click Here to read entire post.

In Magadia v. Wal-mart Associates, Inc., et al., No. 19-16184, 2021 WL 2176584 (9^th Cir. May 28, 2021), the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal reversed the district court’s award of $102 million to an employee who sued the company alleging that he and other employees did not receive compliant wage statements or meal periods.  Unlike the district court, the Ninth Circuit found that the former employee who sued Walmart had suffered no meal period violations, and thus the employee had no standing to sue on behalf of others.  The Ninth Circuit also held that the district court incorrectly concluded Walmart’s wage statements did not comply with California law.

As has been widely reported, companies throughout the country are facing pandemic-related labor shortages, including because of workers’ childcare obligations, concerns about returning to in-person work, and the continuation of unemployment benefits.  Employers attempting to address this labor shortage are offering hiring bonuses, increasing wages, and improving benefits and flexibility.  It also appears they are hiring teenagers to fill these vacancies, which coincides with the general uptick in youth employment between April and July each year.  According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (“BLS”), the unemployment rate among teenagers this month stands at 12.3% and is anticipated to fall further, providing a stark contrast to teen unemployment last summer.  (In July 2020, the unemployment rate for 16 to 24 year olds was 18.5%, about twice as high as the year before, according to the BLS.)

One of the many downsides to the current pandemic is that so many people have exhausted their family leave taking care of themselves as well as sick family members.  The non-COVID-19-related issues of families have not gone away, however.  Who is taking parents to chemo treatments?  Who is taking spouses to physical therapy?  How do employees and employers deal with these issues?  If family leave is no longer an option, employees may turn to associational discrimination and reasonable accommodation of associational discrimination if they are denied time off to take care of family members.

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 April 7, 2021, the Department of Labor (DOL) published new model COBRA notice forms as a result of the recent COBRA subsidy program created by the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA).

On March 29, 2021, the California Supreme Court issued a landmark ruling involving the State’s prevailing wage law, holding for the first time that the law’s requirements could be applied to employees who performed work for a private employer under a contract with a sanitation district.  (Kaanaana v. B. Bus. Servs., Inc., No. S253458, 2021 WL 1166963 (Cal. Mar. 29, 2021))  Prior to this decision, the law had generally been interpreted to apply only to construction work pursuant to a contract entered into with a public entity.

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.