Labor & Employment Law Blog

On January 1, 2024, California’s statewide minimum wage rate increased to $16 per hour. Alongside this hike to the minimum wage, the base salary requirement for California employees exempt under the administrative, professional, and executive exemptions increased to an annualized salary of $66,560.

The local minimum wage will increase on July 1, 2024 in the following locations in California:

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.

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 U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) has released a newly-updated Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) poster, which is available here.

Per the applicable FMLA regulations, “covered employers” must post and keep posted on their premises, in conspicuous locations where employees are employed and where it can be readily seen by employees and applicants for employment, a notice of explaining FMLA’s provisions and the procedures for filing a complaint for FMLA violations with the DOL. Employers are covered by the FMLA if they employ 50 or more employees for each working day during each of 20 or more calendar workweeks in the current or preceding calendar year.  Covered employers must post this notice, even if none of their employees are eligible for FMLA leave. The DOL’s FMLA poster is designed to fulfill such posting requirements.

The federal Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”) permits background checks for employment purposes, so long as employers obtain authorization from and provide the appropriate “stand-alone” disclosure to the applicant or employee regarding the background check, among other requirements. Willful violations of the FCRA’s stand-alone disclosure requirement can lead to recovery of statutory damages ranging from $100 to $1,000 per violation. Thus, a central issue in FCRA cases is whether the employer’s violation is “willful,” which requires a showing that the defendant’s conduct was “intentional” or “reckless.” 

California’s new statewide supplemental paid sick leave (SPSL) law, SB 114, went into effect on February 19, 2022. SB 114 required the State’s Labor Commissioner to issue a “model notice,” which employers must then post in the workplace or, if an employer’s employees do not frequent a workplace, the employer must distribute the notice electronically (such as by email). On February 16^th, the Labor Commissioner issued the new model notice, which is available here.

On January 13, 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court stayed the federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)’s Emergency Temporary Standard (ETS), which required large employers (with 100 or more employees) to institute a policy requiring their employees to be vaccinated against COVID-19 or undergo weekly testing. The Supreme Court’s ruling stayed the vaccine and testing mandate on the basis that OSHA had exceeded its authority in enacting the emergency rule (and that those challenging the mandate were likely to succeed). The Court described the federal ETS as “a significant encroachment into the lives—and health—of a vast number of employees.” Enforcement of the OSHA rule is currently on hold, pending further litigation on the merits.