SB 1340 Allows Enforcement Of Local Employment Discrimination Laws | By: Kelly O. Scott

Over the last several years, California employers have become increasingly aware of cities and counties enacting workplace requirements on a wide range of issues, including scheduling, lay offs, paid sick leave, minimum wages, and other more industry-specific requirements.  Next year that list is likely to become even more expansive with the addition of laws on discrimination. 

Specifically, effective January 1, 2025, Senate Bill 1340 permits any city, county, or other political subdivision of the state to enforce a local law prohibiting discrimination in employment against ...

Posted in The Real Dirt
Landlord: Look Out and Take Notice | By: Geoffrey M. Gold

Lawyers love obscure rules about giving three-day notices—the kind that California landlords hate. The decision in City of Alameda v. Sheehan, published September 13, 2024, teaches that there is a wrong way to issue a notice to pay rent or quit to a delinquent tenant.

In Sheehan, tenant Shelby Sheehan had stopped paying rent for 17 months. The landlord, City of Alameda, had enough. The City directed its property manager, RiverRock Real Estate Group, Inc. to get the tenant current or to evict. The manager served a three-day notice to pay rent or quit that advised the tenant to deliver ...

New Cal/OSHA Indoor Heat Standards Require New Prevention Measures and Written Prevention Plan | By: Joanne Warriner 

Beginning July 23, 2024, California's Indoor Heat Illness Prevention regulations apply to most indoor workplaces.  Among other things, the regulations require that employers implement certain indoor heat illness prevention measures when the indoor temperature reaches certain benchmark levels.  Additionally, employers must develop and implement a written indoor heat illness prevention plan (IHIPP) in the language understood by the majority of workers.

Required heat illness prevention measures must be implemented in most cases when indoor temperatures reach 82°F to ...

California Bans All Plastic Bags at Grocery Stores | By: Pooja S. Nair 

On September 22, 2024, Governor Newsom signed Senate Bill (“SB”) 1053, which prohibits grocery stores from offering single-use plastic carry out bags for sale. Instead, stores must offer only paper bags.

Beginning on January 1, 2026, stores may not offer single-use plastic carry out bags for the purpose of carrying purchased goods, with limited exceptions. Only “recycled paper bags,” would be permitted. Beginning on January 1, 2028, recycled paper bags must be made from a minimum of 50% postconsumer recycled materials.

The legislation targeted a perceived loophole in ...

FTC’s Nationwide Ban on Non-Compete Agreements Stopped by Federal Court Ruling | By: Cate A. Veeneman

The FTC’s effort to implement a nationwide ban on the use of most non-compete agreements has been stalled indefinitely following a recent court ruling by a district court judge in Texas.  Specifically, in Ryan, LLC v. FTC, U.S. District Judge Ada Brown issued a ruling blocking the FTC’s final rule from going into effect, finding that the FTC “lack[ed] statutory authority to promulgate the Non-Compete Rule” and noting that the FTC’s rule was “arbitrary and capricious” as the FTC failed to provide a reasonable explanation to justify the breadth of the rule.

Originally ...

Can the IRS Obtain a Receiver to Help Collect Taxes Owed? | By: Peter Davidson

Q: I have a client who owes money to the IRS. While I know the IRS likely has a tax lien, my understanding was it just waits until a taxpayer’s property is sold and then gets paid out of escrow. Instead, here, the IRS has filed suit and is asking the court to appoint a receiver to take my client’s property and sell it. I thought receivers can’t be appointed if there is an adequate remedy at law, which would be the case here, since the IRS could get a judgement for what it contends it is owed and then attempt to collect on its money judgment. The US Attorney on the case disputes this, saying the IRS ...

Severing Unconscionable Terms in Employment Arbitration Agreements  | By: Jared W. Slater 

In August 2000, the California Supreme Court handed down a landmark ruling that changed the face of employment arbitration agreements going forward.  That case, known as Armendariz v. Foundation Health Psychcare Services, Inc., clarified the standards of “procedural” and “substantive” unconscionability in these agreements.  While Armendariz is commonly cited for its holdings on these different types of unconscionability, a lesser aspect of the holding, which was largely unremarked upon for nearly 25 years, dealt with the issue of severing unconscionable ...

Can You Collaterally Attack a Receiver’s Appointment?

Q: I am a receiver for a partnership. I was appointed pursuant to a stipulation between the current partners and a secured creditor. After an extensive investigation, I have sued the former managing partner and her mother to recover fraudulent transfers, for breach of fiduciary duty and for usurping partnership opportunities. They are contending, in defense, that I cannot maintain my lawsuit because my appointment is not valid, because the current partners, having purportedly wrongfully removed the former managing partner, had no right to stipulate to my appointment. Can they ...

Changes to PAGA Create Opportunities for Employers to Minimize Penalties |  By: Tanner Hosfield

The Private Attorneys General Act (“PAGA”), which permits individual employees to sue employers on behalf of themselves, other employees and the State of California to recover civil penalties for California Labor Code violations, has long garnered criticism for excessively penalizing employers and incentivizing frivolous lawsuits.  Business groups had proposed a ballot initiative for the upcoming election that sought to repeal PAGA and replace it with a new law which did not include the state in the collection of civil penalties and which provided resources for employers ...

Overbroad Employment Arbitration Agreements Will Not Be Enforced in California | By: Jared W. Slater 

Arbitration agreements, at their core, are contracts. As with any contract, there must be “mutuality” or, more colloquially, a “meeting of the minds” on what the contract is intended to encompass. For this reason, employment arbitration agreements are typically limited in scope and drafted to cover only claims or causes of action arising from or related to the relationship between the employee and employer.

 A recent case involving the University of Southern California illustrates the importance of careful drafting. An issue in Cook v. University of Southern California

Subscribe

Recent Posts

Blogs

Contributors

Archives

Jump to PageX

ECJ uses cookies to enhance your experience on our website, to better understand how our website is used and to help provide security. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies. For more information see our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.