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.

California’s Equal Pay Act is codified at Labor Code Sections 1197.5, 1199, and 1199.5 and extends to wage discrimination based on sex, race, and ethnicity. Labor Code Section 1197.5(a) prohibits employers from paying employees at wage rates less than the rates paid to employees of the opposite sex for substantially similar work, when viewed as a composite of skill, effort, and responsibility, and performed under similar working conditions, except where an employer demonstrates three things…

It’s Friday morning, and an employee comes to you. One of the supervisors in another department has been annoying her with his “racist speech.” You ask what she means, and she tells you that he constantly criticizes people who don’t speak English, insults the migrants who are applying for asylum at the border, and sometimes rages and throws things when he’s unhappy. She also reports that he has threatened to “shove [his] foot up [her] ass.” Mindful of your obligation to provide a workplace free of harassment and a safe workplace, you thank the employee for her report and start your investigation. Other employees report that the supervisor is a Trump supporter and has made statements in support of Second Amendment rights, shared radical websites with employees, criticized gay people, and advocated returning all Mexicans to Mexico. They report that they have asked him not to share his political views, but nevertheless, he has persisted. Others confirm that he has thrown objects and verbally attacked employees. What do you do?