A recent California Court of Appeal decision stresses the importance of evidentiary rulings in jury trials, and it demonstrates what types of evidence may be found admissible (or inadmissible) in sexual harassment cases. In Meeks v. Autozone Inc. et al., a female employee sued her employer and one of its managers for claims of sexual harassment, failure to prevent sexual harassment, and retaliation in violation of the Fair Employment and Housing Act. The employee, a manager, alleged that she had been harassed by another manager over an extended period of time and that, when she complained, she was threatened with termination if she did not “squash” her complaint. The trial court dismissed the employee’s retaliation claim, finding that no reasonable juror could find in the employee’s favor, and the jury returned verdicts for the employer on the remaining causes of action.
The Federal Trade Commission in March of 2019 proposed new changes to its Safeguards Rule, which dictates how a financial institution must protect consumer data. In a recent statement the National Automobile Dealers Association opposed the proposed Rule change, citing a study that indicates that the rule change would impose hundreds of thousands of dollars in additional costs on dealers of all sizes. For California dealers that are facing compliance with the California Consumer Privacy Act, though, the question is whether the proposed change to the Rule would impose changes that differ significantly from CCPA requirements.
For decades the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration (NHTSA) has required a “wet signature” on an odometer disclosure for sales of vehicles 10 model-years old or less. That era came to an end this September as NHTSA released its final rule allowing states to develop new odometer disclosure forms that may use an electronic signature. The rule also expands the disclosure requirement to cover vehicles 20 model-years or less. However, for California dealers there remain state laws to prevent fully electronic vehicle sales, and therefore additional steps before California can move into the electronic future.
Department of Labor issues final rules on minimum salary levels for white collar overtime exemption
Published on Wed, 10/02/2019 - 9:35pm
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 ADOMA annual Mini Conference is a full day of education and resource gathering. Participants will have an opportunity to connect with new and seasoned industry veterans in order to share ideas and expand their knowledge base. Scali Rasmussen attorneys Monica Baumann and Chris Scali will be speaking at the conference about California Consumer Privacy Act Compliance.
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.