It has now been four years since we initially reported on the new rules proposed by the Department of Labor to update the minimum salary requirement for the federal white collar overtime and minimum wage exemptions. Since then, the proposed rules have bounced around between the DOL under multiple presidential administrations, the federal courts, and the public forum during public comment periods. We have been on the sidelines reporting play-by-play on the status of these rules at every turn and it appears that we may finally have some resolution!

Last year, we discussed the California Supreme Court decision in Dynamex v. Superior Court, wherein the Court imposed a more stringent standard for employers to show that a worker is an independent contractor and not an employee. This month, Governor Gavin Newsom passed a law that incorporates the Dynamex decision into statutory law and gives the law broader scope.

The type of biometric privacy lawsuit filed last month against a Hilton Hotel in Chicago is a harbinger of privacy litigation to come—but a very similar case is not likely to come soon to California, where the recently minted California Consumer Protection Act (CCPA) excludes employees like the plaintiff against Hilton.

The California Supreme Court giveth with one hand and taketh away with the other. Dealers pay attention. This affects you.

When an employee raises a concern that he or she has suffered violence or threat of violence that has been, or may be, carried out at the workplace, employers have a duty to investigate the employee’s concerns. An employer whose employee has suffered unlawful violence or threat of violence from any individual that can be construed to be, or to have been, carried out at the workplace, may seek a restraining order through the court, pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 572.8.

Earlier this year, we provided you with a comprehensive summary of California’s new sexual harassment training requirements. Prior to the enactment of these new requirements, employers with at least 50 employees were required to provide two hours of sexual harassment training to supervisors. Now, employers with at least five employees are required to provide sexual harassment training to all employees.

Employers who have used severance agreements involving a release of claims are probably familiar with the extra requirements for such agreements when the employee is 40 years or older. Specifically, under the Older Workers Benefits Protection Act (“OWBPA”) a release of age discrimination claims under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”) must meet certain “knowing and voluntary” elements to be enforceable.

Employers have long struggled to make sense of the changing laws regarding when to pay employees whom they don’t perceive as actually working but who aren’t entirely free. In May, we reported that in Ward v. Tilly’s, a California appellate court ruled that employees can be deemed to be “reporting to work” and entitled to reporting time pay for merely calling in to determine whether they must come to work.