With respect to the COVID pandemic, California is the leading state for litigation, with only New York State within reach. The next closest, Florida, has less than half of the cases filed. This should serve as a reminder that in this litigious state, businesses must remain vigilant in preventing the spread of COVID at the workplace.
In November of 2020, Cal/OSHA adopted emergency COVID-related regulations to prevent the spread of COVID in the workplace. Six months later, on June 4, 2021, it announced changes to these restrictions that it will likely formally adopt in the next few days. These restrictions apply to employers and their employees.
State will lift many customer-facing statewide restrictions June 15
Published on Sat, 06/12/2021 - 8:59pm
On June 15, the State of California will lift most of the capacity, social distancing, and masking requirements that affect customers across the state. All sectors, except for major indoor and outdoor events, can return to normal operations if they have been operating under the statewide restrictions. However, all California businesses must continue to keep in mind three factors: 1) local orders, 2) Cal/OSHA employee safety restrictions, and 3) potential legal liability.
California enacted in 2016 a plan to reach a $15.00 per hour minimum wage, with wages set to increase steadily until they reach this point for all employers in 2023. The minimum wage is currently set statewide at $13.00 for small businesses (1-25 employees) and $14.00 an hour for large businesses (26+ employees), respectively. However, on July 1, 2021, many local jurisdictions are increasing their minimum hourly wages beyond these rates.
Congress passed the American Rescue Plan in March of 2021 to extend the paid leave tax credits available to employers with less than 500 employees through September 30, 2021. While employers are no longer required by federal law to provide the leave, if this leave is voluntarily provided (or, provided pursuant to a state or local mandate), employers can continue to obtain tax credits for the maximum amount allowed under federal law for leave taken through September 30, 2021. Please note that the amount paid to the employee may not exactly match the tax credit available if the state or local order requires paying out such leave at a different amount than the federal maximum tax credit.
As we transition back to the “normal” times before March 2020, many employers are wondering whether they can mandate that their employees be vaccinated for COVID. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) and the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing (“DFEH”) have released guidance, stating that subject to certain religious and medical exemptions, the answer is yes. However, we do not recommend employers implement a vaccine mandate, and instead recommend employers take a more relaxed and voluntary approach to obtaining high rates of vaccination among their employees. We have provided the following Frequently Asked Questions and answers.
There are many reasons why employers may want or need to know whether their employees have been vaccinated against COVID-19: the safety of staff and customers, a desire to modify mask rules, or even legal mandates. As a general rule, employers may ask employees for proof that they have received a COVID vaccination, but there are several factors that should be considered if and when doing so. These include ensuring the questions are asked correctly, that privacy measures are in place, and that employee information is safeguarded.
Restrictions are changing, but care is still needed
Published on Fri, 05/21/2021 - 8:11am
The Centers for Disease Control (“CDC”) caused a stir on May 13, 2021, when it issued its “Interim Public Health Recommendations for Fully Vaccinated People.” This guidance allows fully vaccinated individuals to forgo wearing masks and some social distancing protocols in certain circumstances. It is a welcome relief for many, but came as a surprise to state and local governments and the businesses currently operating under COVID protocols.
As a result of the frequency of its occurrence in food products, acrylamide has become a favored target for the private law firms that bring cases against companies for failing to provide Proposition 65 mandated warnings. In 2020, there were some 453 Notices of Violation involving alleged acrylamide-related violations served, many of them naming multiple violators. In the first quarter of 2021 alone, there were 109 such Notices.
Since the inception of California’s Anti-SLAPP statute, federal courts have grappled with how to adapt the law for application in federal proceedings. Federal courts sitting in diversity apply the substantive law of the jurisdiction in which they sit, but not the procedural law. The source of the shifting jurisprudence is the reality that the substance of the Anti-SLAPP law is to a large degree the procedure it imposes that allows for courts and litigants to quickly resolve a “Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation” (what the acronym “SLAPP” stands for), while minimizing the burden on the moving party by imposing a discovery stay, and providing for fees for a successful movant.