Labor & Employment Law Blog

At the outset of the pandemic, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) allowed flexibility in the requirements for Form I-9 compliance for employees working remotely due to COVID-19.  The DHS announced that it would defer the physical presence or physical inspection requirements associated with the verification of acceptable documents. We previously reported on the standard here.  

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.

Tragically, California is reeling from the effects of two mass shootings in almost as many days, each one leaving in its wake shattered lives. These devastating events are on top of what is shaping up to be an especially violent year so far, with multiple mass shootings taking place less than one month into the year.

The pandemic opened Pandora's box for many employers including having employees work remotely.  Remote work has created a plethora of management issues including communications for employees working different schedules over various time zones, technology and security challenges for the home office, dress code for zoom calls, and a myriad of legal considerations such as time keeping from the home rather than from the office, enforceability of non-compete agreements, reimbursing employees for costs associated with home as the office, 1099 misclassification, unemployment compensation, workers' compensation, licensure requirements, and unexpected state and local taxes to name a few.  As Gen Z has begun to supplant Boomers in the workplace, Zoomers need to be given flexibility in their job or bouncing to the next job is a harsh reality.  As a result, many employers are providing employees with the option to work remotely as an employment benefit of the post-pandemic world.

Given the current state of the economy, many employers are considering reductions in work hours and potential layoffs.  As businesses consider taking action to save money and prevent potential closure, they must do so carefully in order to manage and reduce risk of future litigation related to its actions.  This blog discusses the appropriate steps that a business must take when conducting a reduction in force (“RIF”).

Recent mass layoffs by tech companies, such as Twitter and Meta, have made headlines.  The massive layoff by Twitter on November 4, 2022 has already resulted in a lawsuit filed by former Twitter employees for violations of the federal Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification (“WARN”) Act.  The WARN Act requires certain employers to provide 60-day advance notice in cases of qualified plant closings and mass layoffs, allowing employees and their families with transition time to seek alternate employment or skills training.

Wage and hour claims asserted under the Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (“PAGA”) are often compared to class actions, but without the same gatekeeping principles. Under PAGA, a single employee can potentially represent hundreds or thousands of other employees for a garden variety of wage and hour allegations, even if the representative did not experience the same violations—and even if the representative only ever experienced one violation. PAGA’s lack of standards, combined with the persnickety character of the Labor Code, are a recipe for “sue first, ask questions later” lawsuits and difficult decisions to fight or fold.

Due to a cost-of-living increase required by the State’s minimum wage law, effective January 1, 2023, California’s minimum wage will increase from $15.00 to $15.50 per hour for all employers, regardless of their number of employees.

On September 12, 2022, the California Court of Appeal, Second District, held that employees are entitled to recover attorney’s fees and costs stemming from a claim for failure to provide uninterrupted rest periods. Betancourt v. OS Restaurant Services, LLC, Case No. B293625 (Cal. Ct. App 2022). In her complaint, plaintiff Raquel Betancourt also alleged that she was retaliated against and wrongfully terminated for reporting these repeated rest break and food safety violations.

On September 2, 2022, the California Court of Appeal, Second District, delivered a rare victory for California construction employers in Jerome Oswald v. Murray Plumbing and Heating Corporation (2022) __ Cal.Rptr.3d __, Dkt. No. B312736.  At its core, this case shows how qualifying employers can—and should—take advantage of California’s construction industry exemption from the Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (“PAGA”).