Juneteenth commemorates June 19, 1865, the day Union soldiers delivered news to Texas that slaves were to be emancipated. The troops’ arrival came a full two and a half years after the signing of the Emancipation Proclamation. Today, Juneteenth is the oldest African-American holiday and marks the long fight for freedom from enslavement. To recognize this history and the significance of the holiday, on June 17, 2021, President Biden signed a bill making Juneteenth a federal holiday. The law was effective immediately, and many federal employers gave Friday, June 18, 2021, off to their employees, in observation of Juneteenth, and many federal offices were closed.

At the beginning of the pandemic we shared how telework realities of quarantine resulted in potentially new reimbursable business expenses for employees such as home internet, home telephone, utility, office furniture and other costs. Now, even when employees are getting back to the workspace, many will continue to use their personal devices for business use. Where such use is reasonable and necessary, the employer must reimburse such expenses. The first step is to make sure employees can seek reimbursement for expenses such as cell phone use. Since reimbursement of business expenses is a non-waivable right, employees are entitled to reimbursement and can bring a class action or PAGA case seeking the same even if they never directly requested reimbursement from the employer. Several such cases have already been filed across California.

A number of dealerships are experiencing vehicle allocation shortages due to factory shutdowns due to a computer chip shortage affecting the entire industry. While this a challenge to many dealerships, it has also presented an opportunity to sell some vehicles for more than the MSRP due to high demand. This article covers compliance advice on how to disclose these higher prices in a way to avoid scrutiny from the DMV and plaintiffs’ attorneys.

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.

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.

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.

At long last, all adult Americans have access to the COVID vaccine. This raises new questions regarding employers’ ability to mandate vaccinations, what type of liability they may face with respect to unvaccinated employees contracting or spreading COVID, and what rights employees have to access vaccinations. This article examines these issues and concludes that while mandating vaccinations is likely legally defensible, other approaches may limit legal liability while also avoiding major headaches.

Courts across the country took different approaches during the pandemic. This article summarizes the state of civil jury trials in a select few key California counties in which Scali Rasmussen practices regularly.

The deposit is a standard and integral term in buy-sell agreements, whether in an asset purchase agreement (an “APA”) or stock purchase agreement. The focus here will be APAs, since they are used for the vast majority of automobile dealership buy-sells.

On April 1, 2021, the US Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision in a highly anticipated case regarding the definition of automatic telephone dialing systems (“ATDS”) under the Telephone Consumer Privacy Act (“TCPA”). The decision authored by Justice Sotomayor narrows the definition of an ATDS and could have a major impact on how businesses may market to consumers using telephone voice and text.

On January 20, 2021—his very first day in office—President Joe Biden issued an executive order directing agencies to review numerous actions taken by the previous administration. One item under review is the Trump Administration’s revocation of a waiver allowing California to set its own vehicle-emission standards. Although twenty states sued the Trump Administration for that action, President Biden has asked the courts to pause litigation while his administration reviews the waiver revocation.

A lis pendens is a powerful legal tool, which unfortunately is often misunderstood by professionals and lay persons alike. It does not prevent the sale or transfer of title to real property, does not make such transfers void or even technically encumber real property. It simply gives notice to the world of a pending legal action involving real property. Latin for ‘suit pending’, use of the term lis pendens is a holdover from legal concepts first conceived in ancient Rome. Modernly, the terms ‘notice of pendency of action’ or even ‘notice of pending action’ while still clumsy, are more readily recognized. Giving notice of a pending legal action can be essential to effectively safeguarding real property during litigation, despite the awkward language.

The state of California has selected the inaugural board members of the new California Privacy Protection Agency approved by California voters during the November 2020 election. The new board members come from a variety of backgrounds, including private legal practice, academia, and nonprofits.