As you have probably read, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC)’s new version of the Buyers Guide took effect on January 27, 2017. We recommend upgrading to the new version and here are a few main issues to consider regarding its use.

On March 15, 2017, the California New Motor Vehicle Board unanimously adopted a proposed decision sustaining the consolidated protests by Dependable Dodge to notices of termination of its franchises. The administrative law judge found, among other findings, that FCA’s use of a generic Minimum Sales Responsibility was not “tailored and nuanced enough to measure how well a dealer is performing given those unique aspects of the environment and market that are outside its control.” (Proposed Decision ¶ 142.) This is the second of two recent cases challenging OEM’s reliance on statewide standards to terminate California franchises, and part of what could be a bigger trend nationally.

On April 25, 2017 the Department of Motor Vehicles will hold a public hearing in Sacramento for comments on its new proposed regulations for testing and deployment of highly autonomous vehicles (“HAV”) on California roadways. The hearing will happen just one month before the National Highway Safety Administration holds its workshop on June 28, 2017, in Washington D.C., to examine the consumer privacy and security issues posed by automated and “connected” vehicles. The DMV’s new proposed regulations include a requirement that HAVs without a driver be monitored remotely by a person able to take control of the car in case of an emergency. NHTSA’s June workshop should provide insight on the extent to which California’s proposal for “remote” control capabilities of HAV test vehicles lines up with the NHTSA’s vision for the driverless car future.

When you become aware of a potential violation of law or Company policy, as a conscientious Human Resources professional or Company manager you want to promptly and appropriately address the situation and more forward. However, managers often jump to focus on the corrective measures they think will appropriately address the situation before stopping to consider that there may be other sides to the story of which they are not aware. Moreover, should your corrective action result in some adverse employment action, such as discipline, demotion or termination, your process of determining the appropriate corrective action will be subject to second-guessing and scrutiny should the employee later challenge the action. While your corrective process may be correct and may have been the fair and appropriate response, you can save your employer the time and expense of proving that point in court or before an arbitrator if you focus on conducting a fair and effective investigation instead of worrying about the result.

Under the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”) employers who use background checks (such as criminal history or credit reports) of applicants or employees are required to provide clear and conspicuous written disclosure of the applicant/employee’s rights under the FCRA. The written disclosure must be provided in a document that consists solely of the disclosure. The third-parties doing the background checks often provide employers their own disclosure forms to give to applicants, and the employers might assume that these forms are legally compliant.

As many of you have read, last month The Sage Automotive Group, a California dealer group, reached a settlement agreement with the Federal Trade Commission for charges that the dealership group used deceptive and unfair sales and financing practices, deceptive advertising, and deceptive online reviews. The FTC described the charges as the first in the nation brought by the FTC for so-called “yo-yo financing.” Now that the dust has settled, this brief article looks at the allegations and discusses some best practices to avoid suffering a similar fate.

The Scali Law Firm is a proud sponsor of the UCP Humanitarian of the Year Award Dinner at which Rick Niello, President of firm client, The Niello Company, will be awarded the prestigious and well-deserved award of 2017 Humanitarian of the Year. The event is at The Hyatt Regency, Sacramento, CA, on Thursday, May 18, 2017 at 5:30 PM to 9:00 PM.

The wave of regulatory enforcement disruption being perpetuated by the Trump administration in various ways looms for auto dealers in the form of shakeups at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) and Federal Trade Commission (FTC). Scali Law attorneys Christian Scali and Monica Baumann explore what dealers can expect in this article, published on F&I and Showroom.

The California New Car Dealers Association is the country's largest state association of franchised new car and truck dealers representing over 1,100 dealer members. The Scali Law Firm is once again proud to be a Gold Sponsor of the CNCDA's annual Dealer Day legislative conference.

When an employee requests a medical leave, a covered employer’s first concern is determining whether the employee qualifies for protected leave under the Family Medical Leave Act and California Family Rights Act. If the employer determines that the employee does not qualify for such leave (for example, the employee has less than a year of service or has not worked the requisite number of hours) the employer may let down their guard and not issue any leave paperwork to the employee. This is a mistake.

Various laws, including the National Labor Relations Act, protect certain employee speech and expression at work. Also, language restrictions may run afoul of discrimination laws. Here are some common situations in which employers must be careful in restricting employee expression.

Employers have very specific requirements to follow to lawfully employ minors, including the proper documentation for a work permit. Here are some of the requirements..

An employer whose operations include physically demanding work may want to ensure that a job applicant is in sufficient physical shape to safely meet the demands of the position for which he/she is being considered. However, there are substantial restrictions to an employer’s ability to require a job applicant to undergo a physical/medical examination under both the Americans with Disabilities Act and the California Fair Employment and Housing Act.

Yesterday, a California Court of Appeal in Vaquero v. Stoneledge Furniture LLC (Ashley Furniture) found that commission pay plans providing base pay for rest breaks that could be “clawed-back” against future earnings was invalid under California law. Ashley Furniture was sued in a class action by employees claiming that its commission pay plan was noncompliant with California law because it did not properly pay sales employees for rest breaks. The Court of Appeal had two important rulings...