California and Federal courts of appeal published opinions on a wide variety of employment-related cases including wage and hour, whistleblower retaliation, discrimination/ADA, class actions, PAGA claims, and workers compensation. The results are a mixed bag for employers. Of note, the United States Supreme Court was given the opportunity to rule on a crucial ADA issue: whether an ADA “tester” has standing to challenge a business’ failure to provide disability accessibility on its website even if the tester had no plans to visit the business’ premises. Unfortunately, SCOTUS “punted” by dismissing the appeal on a procedural technicality. As a result, the issue remains unresolved.

Both the Federal government and California enacted legislation raising the minimum wage for certain workers. California has also passed several bills that protect employees in variety of ways relating to cannabis use, non-compete agreements, workplace safety, right to organize, retaliation, and reproductive rights.

Employers were overwhelmed with countless obligations during the COVID-19 pandemic, through legislation and emergency standards that focused on the interests of employee safety and wage loss. However, in its recent decision in Corby Kuciemba et al. v. Victory Woodworks Inc., the California Supreme Court drew the line in favor of employers by ruling that employers are not responsible for the spread of COVID-19 to employees’ family members.

Federal law requires employers to physically inspect identity/eligibility documents substantiating a new employee’s authorization to work in the U.S. within three days of hire as part of completing the Form I-9 Eligibility Verification. Effective March 2020, the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency (ICE) relaxed the physical inspection requirements due to concerns about COVID-19 spread from physical proximity and contact.

On July 11, 2023, in unanimous court opinion, a three judge San Francisco appellate court panel overturned a trial court ruling in favor of International Business Machines Corporation (IBM), holding that employers are required under California law to reimburse employees for work from home expenses regardless of whether such work from home was the result of government actions to combat the COVID-19 pandemic.

For almost three years, California employers operated under the COVID-19 Prevention Emergency Temporary Standards that were implemented by Cal/OSHA early in the pandemic, and revised as the pandemic situation evolved. Now, with the decline of the COVID-19 emergency situation, Cal/OSHA has implemented new permanent COVID-19 standards that took effect on February 3, 2023. So what employer obligations remain?

COVID-19 Supplemental Paid Sick Leave (SPSL) was recently extended to December 31, 2022. As we previously reported, this did not afford additional time off to the employee, but extended the time to request leave if they still had unused time. Finally, there is an end to this provision - no further extensions have been made.

The California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) has made clear that it intends to modify and/or limit the use of so-called “Short-Form” warnings required by Proposition 65.

Cal/OSHA's COVID-19 Emergency Temporary Standard (ETS), which was first adopted November 2020, is set to end after December 31, 2022. Instead, the Standards Board announced it will be voting on a proposed “permanent” standard at the next meeting on December 15, 2022. While it is called the permanent standard, it would only last for two years.

In California, another year means another set of new employment laws that impose burdens on employers. The 2022 legislative session was no exception, with new laws passed and signed that address employment-related pay disclosure requirements on job postings, required bereavement leave, extended COVID-related leave, and family medical leave, to name a few areas. The good news for California employers is that none of the new laws make revolutionary changes to employee rights or employer responsibilities, but employers nonetheless need to understand these changes and adjust their practices to avoid potential liability in the future. Some laws passed do not go into effect for another year or two, allowing additional time for compliance (such as the cannabis anti-discrimination law).