Labor & Employment Law Blog

The California Civil Rights Department (CRD) recently rolled out its latest guidance and model notice for employees who are victims of violence or abuse and wish to take time off under law that was amended effective January 1, 2025. The guidance, which the CRD released earlier this month, is designed to ensure that employees understand the rights they are entitled to under AB 2499 that California Governor Gavin Newsom signed into law last year.

California employers are encouraged to review their cellular phone and driving policies in light of a recent Court of Appeal decision which bars drivers from using any functions on a handheld cellular phone while driving. People v. Porter, 111 Cal. App. 5th 927, 333 Cal. Rptr. 3d 168, 171 (2025).

On July 1, 2025, multiple California cities and counties will implement mid‑year minimum wage increases. These adjustments generally reflect shifts in the Consumer Price Index (CPI) and are designed to help employees keep pace with inflation.  Below is a non-exhaustive list of the jurisdictions that will raise their minimum wage:

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) has issued an updated version of Form I-9 in order to align with statutory language. The updated Form I-9 has an edition date of 01/20/25 and an expiration date of 05/31/2027. It is available here and in the “Forms and Document Downloads” section of the “I-9, Employment Eligibility Verification” webpage.

Controversy surrounding “diversity, equity and inclusion” (DEI) programs is neither new nor surprising. But since the beginning of 2025, increased challenges and scrutiny of the term DEI itself has called into question the state of its future existence.

On April 21, 2025, the California Court of Appeal issued a new, published opinion in Bradsbery v. Vicar Operating, Inc. in which the court concluded that revocable, prospective, “blanket” meal period waivers are enforceable in the absence of any evidence that the waivers are unconscionable or unduly coercive to the employee.

On April 8, 2025, the Third Appellate District Court of Appeal published a decision denying an employer’s motion to compel arbitration.  The question before the Court of Appeal was whether the parties’ arbitration agreement required arbitration of the employee’s Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) claims.  The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s ruling that the agreement contained a PAGA carveout such that the employer could not compel the employee’s individual PAGA claims to arbitration.

The courts in Los Angeles are creating controversy over attorneys’ fees awards—a tale in three parts.

In Pollock v. Kelso, 107 Cal. App. 5^th 1190 (2025), Pollock sued for sexual harassment and racial discrimination. The trial court granted summary judgment, and the court of appeal affirmed. The California Supreme court reversed, and on remand, the Court of Appeal awarded appellate costs to Pollock.  Pollock moved for $526,475.63 in attorneys’ fees, and the court awarded $493,577.10.  Defendant appealed.  The summary judgment motion was reversed, and a trial was set.  The parties settled the case except for the appeal on the attorneys’ fees, and filed a stipulation with the court stating, “The court DISMISSES this entire action with prejudice as to all parties and all causes of action.”

In March of 2022, new legislation curtailing the arbitration of sexual harassment and sexual assault claims, titled the Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act (“EFAA”) was passed by Congress and signed into law by former President Biden. The bipartisan motivation behind EFAA was to give survivors of sexual abuse their day in court and eliminate the secretive element of arbitration that often shields these accusations from public scrutiny.  Since then, courts have continued to work out the scope of EFAA. 

Wow, an employment lawyer arguing to embrace love in the workplace. Did he fail sexual harassment 101? Has he not read the headlines about Blake Lively? Employers, as Valentine’s Day approaches, may be contemplating writing policies regarding workplace romances, conducting training on appropriate interactions in the workplace, and even going so far as to prepare love contracts for workplace romances to ensure they are consensual. I, on the other hand, want to know when did love became a four-letter word? Is there a place for love in the workplace? I think the answer is a resounding yes!