Labor & Employment Law Blog

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. 

In light of the unprecedented wildfires in the Los Angeles area which commenced on January 7, 2025, the DLSE published a Frequently Asked Questions website to provide guidance to California employers on laws enforced by the Labor Commissioner’s office.

Effective October 10, 2024, San Diego County adopted its new Fair Chance Ordinance (“SDFCO”). The SDFCO imposes additional restrictions that covered employers must follow regarding the use of criminal history in employment, on top of what California law already requires. 

The new SDFCO applies to employers that do business in the unincorporated areas of the County of San Diego and have 5 or more employees. Applicants and current employees who are in or are seeking a position involving at least 2 hours of work, including remote work, on average each week in the unincorporated areas of the County, receive protections under the SDFCO. Unlike the California state Fair Chance Act (“FCO”), the SDFCO expressly defines an “applicant” to include those applying for employment but also current employees seeking promotions or transfers.

Back in February, 2024, the Los Angeles County Fair Chance Ordinance for Employers (the “FCO”) was adopted by the County Board of Supervisors. The FCO became operative and subject to enforcement on September 3, 2024 and adds a variety of additional compliance obligations for covered employers and added protections for covered applicants and employees, above and beyond what existing state law requires. Covered employers must ensure that they comply with the stricter of state and local laws governing the use of criminal history in employment.

With the close of the California legislative season, there are a variety of employment law bills which will become law on January 1, 2025. Golden State employers should be aware that several of these new laws necessitate updates to employment policies and handbooks. Specifically:

California health care employers will recall that Governor Newsom signed SB 525 into law in October 2023, setting into motion planned increases to the required minimum wage for certain health care employees who work at covered health care facilities. SB 525 required increases to the health care minimum wage to begin in June 2024, but the law’s start date became a matter of confusion and chaos, with the State first delaying SB 525’s start date to July 1, 2024 based upon budgetary concerns, only to then delay it again until at least October 15, 2024.

Lately, Deputy Labor Commissioners have been making unannounced visits to fast food stores in Los Angeles County to conduct audits. They arrive, sometimes alone, and sometimes in pairs, and ask for the manager.  The Deputy Labor Commissioners insist on conducting the audit while they are on the premises, and they have not been amenable to requests to come back on a date and time that is more convenient.  Below, please find useful information about the types of information that will be sought by the Deputy Labor Commissioners if you are subject to such an audit.

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. 

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.