Labor & Employment Law Blog

On Tuesday, May 26, 2020, the Health Officer of the County of San Diego issued an “Order of the Health Officer and Emergency Regulations.” The Order requires additional protections for the public, provides additional recreational activity opportunities, and provides increased protections for employees and customers/clients of essential and re-opened businesses by increasing the requirements for facial coverings, health checks, and temperature screening.

The counties of Fresno, Napa, Sacramento, San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara, Solano, Sonoma, and Ventura are the latest to join the growing group of counties which have sought and received variances from the California Department of Public Health to proceed into California’s Advanced Stage 2 reopening.  The variances generally authorize restaurants to re-open for dining-in and retailers to re-open for in-store shopping across the eight counties.  A few of the counties’ Orders also permit additional types of businesses to reopen.

Last night, after submitting requests to the State for approval to move forward, San Diego County became the first highly-populated county^[1] to receive a variance from the California Department of Public Health (CDPH) which allows San Diego County to advance further forward through Stage 2 of the reopening plan. 

California has begun to reopen some non-essential businesses.  Many counties, including Alameda, Contra Costa, Los Angeles, Marin, San Francisco, and San Mateo (just to name some), have issued orders to enter the State’s initial Phase 2 plan.  In addition, Santa Clara County has issued an order that will be effective on May 22, 2020 that also allows some non-essential businesses to reopen.  In the initial Phase 2 plan, certain specified businesses may open, such as retail businesses (for curbside pickup only), subject to compliance with state and local directives for safety.  This often includes the implementation of written protocols, which vary jurisdiction-by-jurisdiction and industry-to-industry.  Over the weekend, the CDC also issued industry-specific guidelines for consideration in the reopening process, which may be accessed here at Appendix F. 

On September 12, 2019, the California Supreme Court decided in a unanimous decision that in a Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) action seeking to recover penalties under California Labor Code Section 558, a plaintiff may recover civil penalties but may not recover actual unpaid wages. This is an important decision, which now clearly prevents a plaintiff from seeking both statutory penalties and wages under PAGA (as is often argued by the plaintiff). The high court did, however, reinforce that actions seeking statutory penalties under PAGA cannot be compelled to arbitration.