Employers often find that ensuring compliance with the Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) can be tricky. This handy checklist will help employers who are establishing their practices and will serve as a confirmation tool for those employers who believe they have a compliant practice. Continue reading
To combat the trafficking and exploitation of foreign workers, the California Legislature enacted SB 477 in 2014 to strengthen regulations on “foreign labor contractors” who recruit foreign workers to relocate to California. See Bus & P C §§9998–9998.11. The law put most of the compliance burden on the labor contractors, but there are implications for employers, too. Continue reading
When you’re negotiating settlement of an employment action, you have much more to consider than just “how much money.” There are many nonmonetary remedies that can—either alone or combined with money—bring the parties to agreement. And how money is paid out can also be a good bargaining chip. Continue reading
Were you able to keep track of the new legislative changes that will affect California employers and employment lawyers? Don’t worry, we did and here’s an overview of some of the key statutory changes you need to know about. Continue reading
Who owns an employee’s inventions? This is an issue that’s vitally important to many businesses, particularly those in the tech industry. Most companies are taking a proactive step by requiring employees to sign invention assignment agreements as a condition of their employment. Here are some tips for drafting these agreements for the employer’s maximum protection. Continue reading
Although prohibiting gender-based wage discrimination since 1949, California’s Equal Pay Act (Lab C §1197.5) was rarely used as a basis for litigation because its language made it difficult for an aggrieved plaintiff to establish a successful claim. But now that the legislature has amended it, §1197.5 may become more popular with plaintiffs. And employers get more clarity about what is and isn’t allowed.
The following is a guest blog post by Jeffrey D. Polsky, a partner at Fox Rothschild LLP, where he counsels employers on California employment law issues, represents them in litigation, and writes for Fox Rothschild’s California Employment Law Blog.
Should employers have mandatory arbitration agreements with their employees? Having tried and arbitrated dozens of cases on behalf of employers, here are what I see as the pros and cons—and where I stand on the question. Continue reading
There are some interview or application questions that might elicit information that could get an employer into legal hot water if used to make an employment decision. Questions that touch on sex identity and sexual orientation should be off-limits. Here are some acceptable and unacceptable questions to help employers avoid problems in this area. Continue reading
Smoking in California workplaces has been prohibited for decades. But just because you see or smell tobacco smoke in a workplace doesn’t mean the law is being broken. Understand the law and its exclusions so you can properly advise your clients. Continue reading
The following is a guest blog post from Gina Roccanova. Ms. Roccanova is a Principal at Meyers Nave and Chair of the Labor and Employment Practice Group, where she serves public and private clients with nearly 20 years of experience in negotiations, counseling, litigation, arbitration, and training.
With political backing from Lt. Governor Gavin Newsom, financial support from Sean Parker, and a significant coalition of pro-legalization groups, the Adult Use of Marijuana Act (AUMA) is likely to appear on the California ballot in November. According to numerous polls, a wide majority of voters support the initiative. If it passes, adults age 21 and over will have the right to possess, use, and grow limited amounts of marijuana for personal, recreational use. What does this mean for California employers? The answer depends on a situation that’s increasingly familiar in today’s world: employers will have to balance the pros and cons inherent in following the regulatory status quo against responding to changing societal views. Continue reading