Employers widely recognize that the Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”) imposes an affirmative duty on employers to make a reasonable accommodation for the known disability of an employee or applicant unless doing so would impose undue hardship to the employer's operations. California Government Code 12026(m). Determining the nature of the accommodation is a case-by-case process that requires individualized review based on the employee’s limitations and the nature of the employee’s essential duties. This can be a daunting task for employers, and diligent employers, who are accustomed to bearing the administrative and compliance burdens of fulfilling their EEO obligations, may be inclined to take decisive and unilateral action in response to receiving notice of an employee’s need for an accommodation.

The Corporate Transparency Act (“CTA”) has been a point of contention between the United States Federal Government and small businesses, evidenced by the lawsuit brought by the National Small Business Association (“NSBA”) on behalf of its members. While the Northern District of Alabama recently prohibited the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (“FinCEN”) from enforcing the CTA against the NSBA’s members, the court’s order does not appear to apply to non-NSBA members and the US Department of Justice has signaled its intent to appeal the decision. Thus, despite these new developments on the enforcement of the CTA, it is critical that dealers comply with the requirements of the CTA.

California’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (“OEHHA”) is the agency responsible for regulating Proposition. In October of 2023, OEHHA published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, proposing amendments to existing sections of the safe harbor warning regulations for consumer product exposures.

There have been several developments in 2024 pertaining to California’s privacy laws. Specifically, the California Privacy Protection Agency (“CPPA”) – the agency that enforces the CPRA - won the battle in an important court case that allows it to begin immediate enforcement of its revised CPRA regulations. In addition, the California Attorney General’s office (“AG”) announced its second-ever enforcement decision under the CPRA and further advised that it would continue with its enforcement “sweeps.”

At Scali Rasmussen, we are committed to our employee’s total wellness, and we believe mental health, is health.

Christian Scali has been recognized by Los Angeles Business Journal as one of the "Top 100 Lawyers of Los Angeles for 2024." The award honors attorneys who "have demonstrated exceptional legal skill and achievements across the full spectrum of responsibility, exemplary leadership and contribution to the Los Angeles community at large," states the publisher.

As of February 1, 2024, the California Department of Industrial Relations issued a new Time of Hire Notice that is to be provided to all newly hired employees in the State of California. This notice applies to all industrial injuries occurring on or after January 1, 2013, and provides employees information regarding: benefits available through the workers’ compensation system, instruction on what to do in the event of an industrial injury, anti-discrimination provisions related to workplace injuries, and contact details for further information. This updated notice should immediately replace the prior Time of Hire pamphlet that was issued in 2014.

For the fourth year, the California Civil Rights Department (“CRD”, formerly the Department of Fair Employment and Housing) is requiring employers with 100 or more employees to report pay, demographic, and other workforce data for employees assigned to California establishments and/or working within California.

Congress enacted the whistleblower protections of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (“Act”) to prohibit publicly traded companies from retaliating against employees who report what they reasonably believe to be instances of criminal fraud or securities law violations. Title 18 U. S. C. section 1514A(a) specifically provides that employers may not “discharge, demote, suspend, threaten, harass, or in any other manner discriminate against an employee in the terms and conditions of employment because of” protected whistleblowing activity.

In Estrada v. Royalty Carpet Mills, the California Supreme Court published its long-awaited decision regarding the trial court’s ability to dismiss or strike Private Attorneys General Act (“PAGA”) claims based on their “unmanageability.” Before discussing the opinion, it is important to first define some key terms.