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.

Scali Rasmussen employees taking the chance for some local fun in Downtown LA at an Escape Room. They escaped with 2 mins to spare!

The Los Angeles Business Journal today published its list of the “Top Litigators in Los Angeles,” naming Scali Rasmussen Managing Partner, Christian Scali. Of the more than 350 nominations, only 50 professionals were selected. The list, according to the publication, includes those lawyers who “go to the proverbial mat to fight for their clients.” This is the second consecutive year that Scali has made the list.

In a recent decision by the California Court of Appeal, the Court confirmed that auto dealers cannot withhold a customer’s down payment after a sale is unwound as a result of the inability to secure financing, and that the DMV has authority to discipline a dealer for doing so, including suspension or revocation of the dealer’s license.

This article is a follow-up to an article discussing the future enactment of warning regulations for rental vehicles pursuant to California’s Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986, commonly known as “Proposition 65.” Since that article, the proposed regulations for rental vehicles have gone into effect and regulators have issued their “Final Statement of Reasons” explaining the purpose and intent of the regulations.

Last year, we discussed the significance of the case Troester v. Starbucks Corporation, in which the California Supreme Court found that the federal de minimis doctrine did not apply to the plaintiff’s class action claims brought under California law. The federal de minimis doctrine provides that “insubstantial or insignificant periods of time…which cannot as a practical administrative matter be precisely recorded for payroll purposes, may be disregarded.” In cases applying federal law, courts have regularly held that daily periods of up to 10 minutes of work are de minimis.

In recent weeks two data breaches have made headlines across the country, once again drawing attention to the need for businesses to take steps to safeguard customer data. Dealers have a legal obligation to safeguard their customer’s information under both federal and state law, in most jurisdictions. These breaches may also increase the salience of data security issues for customers, meaning that your customers may start to ask questions about how you will protect their data and demand good answers. With the legal obligations aligning with customer expectations, now is the time more than ever to act.

The California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA), which was enacted in June of 2018 and will go into effect on January 1, 2020, is likely to undergo additional changes as the California Legislature enters the final stretch of the legislative year. We have previously updated you on legislation supported by the California Attorney General that would expand the scope of the law and increase consumer’s opportunities for consumers to bring lawsuits for alleged violations of the law. The good news is that the worst aspects of these proposed changes were defeated in committee and will not be enacted this year. The bad news is that some of the more important proposed business-friendly protections have been narrowed.

In a case demonstrating that independent franchised dealers are advocates for the rights and safety of their customers in the face of factory complacency and even opposition, a jury ordered Toyota to pay Southern California Toyota dealer Roger Hogan $15.8 million.

Scali Rasmussen announced today that attorney Monica J. Baumann has successfully completed her certification as a Certified Information Privacy Professional (CIPP). Baumann, a member of the firm’s Data Protection, Privacy, and Cybersecurity team, received the certification through the International Association of Privacy Professionals, the world’s preeminent organization for credentialing privacy professionals. The certification demonstrates one’s understanding of the laws, regulations, and standards of privacy and data security in a given discipline.

Automotive News consulted firm Managing Partner, Christian Scali for their article Lenders tightened reins after Great Recession. "More lenders seem to have a zero-tolerance approach, and they're quick to tighten the screws on dealers," said Scali. "The effect of this in some cases was a cascading chain of events that can have devastating effects on the dealer and from which it becomes impossible to recover."

The new standard on worker classification in California, instituted by Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. The Superior Court of Los Angeles continues to develop. Here’s the latest.

We previously reported on an employer’s obligations with respect to providing and maintaining employee uniforms. In that article, we noted that shoes with slip-resistant soles are generally not considered a “uniform” under the law, and employers may require them without having to provide or maintain them. However, until recently, there was no published California case law directly on point finding that slip-resistant shoes need not be reimbursed under California’s Labor Code requirements.

As most employers know, non-compete agreements are generally void as against public policy in California, but what about former employees who try to steal not customers, but other employees?

The California legislature’s ongoing efforts to counter the effects of policies and practices that adversely affect employees based on race has led to another law of which employers should be aware. Senate Bill 188 (otherwise known as the Create a Respectful and Open Workplace for Natural Hair “CROWN” Act), which was passed in July 2019 and will take effect January 1, 2020, expands the definition of “race” under the Fair Employment and Housing Act to include hairstyles and hair textures closely associated with race.

California employers and dealerships are regularly getting hit with class action wage and hour claims, or lawsuits under the Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA), which presently allows a single employee to bring claims for all others who suffered any violation of numerous labor statutes. One common issue in these cases is meal breaks.