Updated Employment Laws for San Francisco Employers

Employers with employees performing work in San Francisco need to know of three changes to local employment laws that take effective July 1, 2020:

  • Minimum Wage Increases to $16.07
  • Paid Parental Leave Expands to 8 Weeks
  • Updated Required Posters

Generally speaking, San Francisco’s employment-related ordinances apply if an employee works 2 or more hours per week in San Francisco.

SF Minimum Wage: $16.07

The San Francisco minimum wage increases to $16.07 per hour on July 1, 2020. The minimum wage proposition approved by San Francisco voters in 2014 requires that on July 1, 2020, the minimum wage rate be adjusted based on the annual increase in the Consumer Price Index.

Paid Parental Leave: 8 Weeks

California expanded the Paid Family Leave program for Claim Effective Dates beginning on or after July 1, 2020. Under the expanded benefits, employees are entitled to 8 weeks of California Paid Family Leave for new child bonding. Employers are required to extend paid parental leave compensation from 6 weeks to 8 weeks as of July 1, 2020.

When a Covered Employee gets 8 weeks of Paid Family Leave benefits from the California Employment Development Department (EDD), that employee is also entitled to 8 weeks of San Francisco Paid Parental Leave Ordinance Supplemental Compensation from their employer.

Required San Francisco Posters

Employers covered by San Francisco labor laws must place up-to-date required posters at each workplace or job site in a location where employees can see the postings easily.

Current posters are available to print on the OLSE website.

Original article Robert E. Nuddleman

Feel free to suggest topics for the blog. We are happy to consider topics pertaining to general points of Labor and Employment Law. We cannot answer questions about specific situations or provide legal advice over the Internet. If you desire legal advice, you should contact an attorney.

Using this blog does not create an attorney-client relationship between you and Nuddleman Law Firm, P.C. Using the Internet or this blog to communicate with the firm does not establish an attorney-client relationship. Do not post confidential or time-sensitive information in this blog. The Nuddleman Law Firm, P.C. cannot guarantee the confidentiality of anything posted on this blog.

The Nuddleman Law Firm, P.C. represents employers and employees in a wide range of employment law matters. Much of our practice focuses on wage and hour issues, such as unpaid overtime, meal and rest break violations, designing or enforcing commission plans, and other wage-related claims. Mr. Nuddleman advises employers on how to avoid harassment and wrongful termination claims and represents employees who have been victims of unlawful discrimination, retaliation or harassment. The Nuddleman Law Firm, P.C. helps employers develop good employment policies, helps employers and employees with disability accommodation issues and ensures employees are correctly paid wages owed.

New DOL FAQs on FFCRA

Is that enough abbreviations for you? The Department of Labor just issued a few new answers to frequently asked questions about Emergency Paid Sick Leave and Expanded Family Medical Leave under the Families First Coronavirus Response Act. Now you know why I used the abbreviations.

The FFCRA, which became effective April 2, 2020, and remains in place at least until December 31, 2020, provides paid time off for certain COVID-19 related reasons. The Act and the regulations implementing the Act were a bit rushed, leaving a number of unanswered questions.

The following are a few new answers just released:

Employee Previously Able to Telework Now Cannot Work Due to Childcare or School Closure

91. My employees have been teleworking productively since mid-March without any issues. Now, several employees claim they need to take paid sick leave and expanded family and medical leave to care for their children, whose school is closed because of COVID-19, even though these employees have been teleworking with their children at home for four weeks. Can I ask my employees why they are now unable to work or if they have pursued alternative child care arrangements?

You may require that the employee provide the qualifying reason he or she is taking leave, and submit an oral or written statement that the employee is unable to work because of this reason, and provide other documentation outlined in section 826.100 of the Department’s rule applying the FFCRA. While you may ask the employee to note any changed circumstances in his or her statement as part of explaining why the employee is unable to work, you should exercise caution in doing so, lest it increase the likelihood that any decision denying leave based on that information is a prohibited act. The fact that your employee has been teleworking despite having his or her children at home does not mean that the employee cannot now take leave to care for his or her children whose schools are closed for a COVID-19 related reason. For example, your employee may not have been able to care effectively for the children while teleworking or, perhaps, your employee may have made the decision to take paid sick leave or expanded family and medical leave to care for the children so that the employee’s spouse, who is not eligible for any type of paid leave, could work or telework. These (and other) reasons are legitimate and do not afford a basis for denying paid sick leave or expanded family and medical leave to care for a child whose school is closed for a COVID-19 related reason.This does not prohibit you from disciplining an employee who unlawfully takes paid sick leave or expanded family and medical leave based on misrepresentations, including, for example, to care for the employee’s children when the employee, in fact, has no children and is not taking care of a child.

Documentation for Employee with COVID-19 Symptoms

92. My employee claims to have tiredness or other symptoms of COVID-19 and is taking leave to seek a medical diagnosis. What documentation may I require from the employee to document efforts to obtain a diagnosis? When can it be required?

In order for your employee to take leave under the FFCRA, you may require the employee to identify his or her symptoms and a date for a test or doctor’s appointment. You may not, however, require the employee to provide further documentation or similar certification that he or she sought a diagnosis or treatment from a health care provider in order for the employee to use paid sick leave for COVID-19 related symptoms. The minimal documentation required to take this leave is intentional so that employees with COVID-19 symptoms may take leave and slow the spread of COVID-19.Please note, however, that if an employee were to take unpaid leave under the FMLA, the FMLA’s documentation requirements are different and apply. Further, if the employee is concurrently taking another type of paid leave, any documentation requirements relevant to that leave still apply.

Summer Vacation Does Not Entitle Employee to Paid Sick Leave

93. I took paid sick leave and am now taking expanded family and medical leave to care for my children whose school is closed for a COVID-19 related reason. After completing distance learning, the children’s school closed for summer vacation. May I take paid sick leave or expanded family and medical leave to care for my children because their school is closed for summer vacation?

No. Paid sick leave and emergency family and medical leave are not available for this qualifying reason if the school or child care provider is closed for summer vacation, or any other reason that is not related to COVID-19. However, the employee may be able to take leave if his or her child’s care provider during the summer—a camp or other programs in which the employee’s child is enrolled—is closed or unavailable for a COVID-19 related reason.

You can review all the FAQs at: https://www.dol.gov/agencies/whd/pandemic/ffcra-questions

We are open and assisting clients throughout this process. Due to the volume of calls and emails, I may be a bit slower than normal, but please feel free to reach out if you have employment-related questions.

Information provided by Robert Nuddleman of the Nuddleman Law Firm, P.C.

Feel free to suggest topics for the blog. We are happy to consider topics pertaining to general points of Labor and Employment Law. We cannot answer questions about specific situations or provide legal advice over the Internet. If you desire legal advice, you should contact an attorney.

Using this blog does not create an attorney-client relationship between you and Nuddleman Law Firm, P.C. Using the Internet or this blog to communicate with the firm does not establish an attorney-client relationship. Do not post confidential or time-sensitive information in this blog. The Nuddleman Law Firm, P.C. cannot guarantee the confidentiality of anything posted on this blog.

The Nuddleman Law Firm, P.C. represents employers and employees in a wide range of employment law matters. Much of his practice focuses on wage and hour issues, such as unpaid overtime, meal and rest break violations, designing or enforcing commission plans, and other wage-related claims. He also advises employers on how to avoid harassment and wrongful termination claims and represents employees who have been victims of unlawful discrimination, retaliation or harassment. The Nuddleman Law Firm, P.C. helps employers develop good employment policies, and helps employers and employees with disability accommodation issues.

Bay Area Counties Double Down on Shelter-in-Place Orders

This Article was updated on 4/7/2020 to include correcting and clarifying information from the Temporary Regulations on the FFCRA.

This is no April Fool’s joke. The same day the new Federal Families First Coronavirus Response Act goes into effect, 8 Bay Area jurisdictions extend the current Shelter-in-Place orders and further limit the list of “essential businesses.

Aside from extending the Shelter-in-Place order to May 3rd, the new orders also:

  • Limit activities at parks and other outdoor activities
  • Close playgrounds and shared facilities for recreational facilities
  • Close dog parks
  • Require essential businesses to prepare, post, and implement a Social Distancing Protocol
  • Limit the number of people allowed in a store at one time and providing guidance on how to control shopping lines
  • Require companies remaining open to provide hand sanitizer
  • Further limit allowable construction activities
  • Eliminate the exemption for businesses that sell products that allow people to work from home
  • Allow delivery of goods but not services to residences and businesses.

Fewer Essential Businesses Under New Stay at Home Orders

Even if you were an essential business under the prior order, or are an exempt business under California’s Stay-at-Home order, review your county’s Shelter-in-Place order to ensure you are still exempt from the order:

Remember, the counties and cities can create stricter restrictions than the state. Businesses exempt under the state order may not be exempt under the applicable county order.

Also, if you are an exempt business and you intend to remain open, you must adopt a conforming Social Distancing Protocol. The Alameda County Revised Order has a sample Social Distancing Protocol businesses and complete and post.

New Emergency Paid Sick Leave Answers

In other news, the Secretary of Labor’s FAQ’s regarding the FFCRA seem to confirm that the Emergency Sick Leave does not apply to business closures resulting from the shelter in place orders. Questions & Answers Numbers 23-25, and 27 indicate that emergency paid sick leave does not apply to worksite closures “pursuant to a Federal, State or local directive.”  As a result, the intended federal safety net for employees unable to work due to such local directives appears to be unemployment compensation (and not federal Emergency Paid Sick Leave).  By contrast, employees may be entitled to use state/local mandated paid sick leave for inability to work due to a shelter order (depending on the specific terms of the state or local paid sick leave law).

UPDATE 4/2/2020: After issuing the Q&A, the DOL issued Temporary Regulations indicating the above interpretation of the Q&A is incorrect.

§ 826.10 General of the regulations state:

For the purposes of the EPSLA, a quarantine or isolation order includes quarantine, isolation, containment, shelter-in-place, or stay-at-home orders issued by any Federal, State, or local government authority that cause the Employee to be unable to work even though his or her Employer has work that the Employee could perform but for the order. This also includes when a Federal, State, or local government authority has advised categories of citizens (e.g., of certain age ranges or of certain medical conditions) to shelter in place, stay at home, isolate, or quarantine, causing those categories of Employees to be unable to work even though their Employers have work for them. 

The regulations and Q&A still indicate if an employee is unable to work because the workplace has closed or has no work for the employee–even if the lack of work is related to COVID-19 or a shelter-in-place order–then the employee is not eligible for EPSL or EFMLA.

#25 If my employer closes my worksite while I am on paid sick leave or expanded family and medical leave, what happens?

If your employer closes while you are on paid sick leave or expanded family and medical leave, your employer must pay for any paid sick leave or expanded family and medical leave you used before the employer closed. As of the date your employer closes your worksite, you are no longer entitled to paid sick leave or expanded family and medical leave, but you may be eligible for unemployment insurance benefits. This is true whether your employer closes your worksite for lack of business or because the employer was required to close pursuant to a Federal, State or local directive. You should contact your State workforce agency or State unemployment insurance office for specific questions about your eligibility. For additional information, please refer to https://www.careeronestop.org/LocalHelp/service-locator.aspx.

See Introduction to Regulations, page 14:

An employee subject to one of these orders may not take paid sick leave where the employer does not have work for the employee. This is because the employee would be unable to work even if he or she were not required to comply with the quarantine or isolation order. For example, if a coffee shop closes temporarily or indefinitely due to a downturn in business related to COVID-19, it would no longer have any work for its employees. A cashier previously employed at the coffee shop who is subject to a stay-at-home order would not be able to work even if he were not required to stay at home. As such, he may not take paid sick leave because his inability to work is not due to his need to comply with the stay-at-home order, but rather due to the closure of his place of employment

See, also, § 826.20(a)(2) Paid Leave Entitlements:

An Employee Subject to a Quarantine or Isolation Order may not take Paid Sick Leave where the Employer does not have work for the Employee as a result of the order or other circumstances. 

We are open and assisting clients throughout this process. Due to the volume of calls and emails, I may be a bit slower than normal, but please feel free to reach out if you have employment-related questions.

Information provided by Robert Nuddleman of the Nuddleman Law Firm, P.C.

Feel free to suggest topics for the blog. We are happy to consider topics pertaining to general points of Labor and Employment Law. We cannot answer questions about specific situations or provide legal advice over the Internet. If you desire legal advice, you should contact an attorney.

Using this blog does not create an attorney-client relationship between you and Nuddleman Law Firm, P.C. Using the Internet or this blog to communicate with the firm does not establish an attorney-client relationship. Do not post confidential or time-sensitive information in this blog. The Nuddleman Law Firm, P.C. cannot guarantee the confidentiality of anything posted on this blog.

The Nuddleman Law Firm, P.C. represents employers and employees in a wide range of employment law matters. Much of his practice focuses on wage and hour issues, such as unpaid overtime, meal and rest break violations, designing or enforcing commission plans, and other wage-related claims. He also advises employers on how to avoid harassment and wrongful termination claims and represents employees who have been victims of unlawful discrimination, retaliation or harassment. The Nuddleman Law Firm, P.C. helps employers develop good employment policies, and helps employers and employees with disability accommodation issues.

The Times They Are A-Changin’

Last week was a bit of a whirlwind. Seven Bay Area Counties issued shelter-in-place orders. The Federal government passed two new laws as part of a larger bill providing extensive paid time off for employers with less than 500 employees. Governor Newsom issued Executive Order N-33-20 “ordering all residents are directed to immediately heed the current State public health directives.”

The Statewide stay-at-home order differs in some fairly significant ways from the county shelter-in-place orders. The same basic rule applies:

“Everyone is required to stay home except to get food, care for a relative or friend, get necessary health care, or go to an essential job. If you go out, keep at least 6 feet of distance.”

The list of “essential services” differs from the county orders. The State public health directives indicate the following essential services will remain open, such as:

  • Gas stations 
  • Pharmacies
  • Food: Grocery stores, farmers markets, food banks, convenience stores, take-out, and delivery restaurants 
  • Banks 
  • Laundromats/laundry services 
  • Essential state and local government functions will also remain open, including law enforcement and offices that provide government programs and services.

Additionally, companies “needed to maintain continuity of operation of the federal critical infrastructure sectors” are allowed to continue. Friday, March 20, 2020, the list of “Essential Critical Infrastructure Workers” was updated. I suspect this list will change over the coming days and weeks. As of today, the following are just a few of the categories of workers that are covered by my clients. This is not the complete list of workers considered part of the Critical Infrastructure. I put this list together so my clients could go to a single location and identify whether they can allow their workers to come to work.

Healthcare/Public Health Sector

  • Health care providers and caregivers (e.g., physicians, dentists, psychologists, mid-level practitioners, nurses and assistants, infection control and quality assurance personnel, pharmacists, physical and occupational therapists and assistants, social workers, speech pathologists and diagnostic and therapeutic technicians and technologists).
  • Hospital and laboratory personnel (including accounting, administrative, admitting and discharge, engineering, epidemiological, source plasma and blood donation, food service, housekeeping, medical records, information technology and operational technology, nutritionists, sanitarians, respiratory therapists, etc.).
  • Workers in other medical facilities (including Clinics, Community Mental Health, Home Health care, Hospices, Psychiatric, Residential, Rural Health Clinics, and Federally Qualified Health Centers, cannabis retailers).
  • Warehouse operators, and distributors of medical equipment, personal protective equipment (PPE), laboratory supplies, cleaning, sanitizing, disinfecting or sterilization supplies, and tissue and paper towel products.
  • Public health/community health workers,
  • Behavioral health workers (including mental and substance use disorder) responsible for coordination, outreach, engagement, and treatment to individuals in need of mental health and/or substance use disorder services
  • Workers that manage health plans, billing, and health information, who cannot practically work remotely.
  • Workers who conduct community-based public health functions, conducting epidemiologic surveillance, compiling, analyzing and communicating public health information, who cannot practically work remotely.
  • Workers who provide support to vulnerable populations to ensure their health and well-being including family care providers
  • Workers performing security, incident management, and emergency operations functions at or on behalf of healthcare entities including healthcare coalitions, who cannot practically work remotely.
  • Workers who support food, shelter, and social services, and other necessities of life for economically disadvantaged or otherwise needy individuals, such as those residing in shelters.
  • Workers supporting veterinary hospitals and clinics

Emergency Services Sector

  • Workers – including contracted vendors — who maintain digital systems infrastructure supporting law enforcement and emergency service operations.
  • Private security, private fire departments, and private emergency medical services personnel.
  • County workers responding to abuse and neglect of children, elders and dependent adults.

Essential Workforce – Public Works

  • Workers such as plumbers, electricians, exterminators, and other service providers who provide services that are necessary to maintaining the safety, sanitation, and essential operation of residences.
  • Support, such as road and line clearing, to ensure the availability of needed facilities, transportation, energy and communications Support to ensure the effective removal, storage, and disposal of residential and commercial solid waste and hazardous waste.

Food and Agriculture

  • Workers supporting groceries, pharmacies, and other retail that sells food and beverage products, including but not limited to Grocery stores, Corner stores and convenience stores, including liquor stores that sell food, Farmers’ markets, Food banks, Farm and produce stands, Supermarkets, Similar food retail establishments, Big box stores that sell groceries and essentials
  • Restaurant carry-out and quick-serve food operations – including food preparation, carry-out and delivery food employees
  • Food manufacturer employees and their supplier employees—to include those employed in food processing (packers, meat processing, cheese plants, milk plants, produce, etc.) facilities; livestock, poultry, seafood slaughter facilities; pet and animal feed processing facilities; human food facilities producing by-products for animal food; beverage production facilities; and the production of food packaging
  • Employees and firms supporting food, feed, and beverage distribution (including curbside distribution and deliveries), including warehouse workers, vendor-managed inventory controllers, blockchain managers, distribution
  • Workers supporting cannabis retail and dietary supplement retail
  • Animal agriculture workers to include those employed in veterinary health;

Energy

  • Workers who maintain, ensure, or restore the generation, transmission, and distribution of electric power, including call centers, utility workers, reliability engineers and fleet maintenance technicians
  • Environmental remediation/monitoring technicians
  • Petroleum product storage, pipeline, marine transport, terminals, rail transport, road transport
  • Petroleum refinery facilities
  • Petroleum security operations center employees and workers who support emergency response services
  • Retail fuel centers such as gas stations and truck stops, and the distribution systems that support them.
  • Processing, refining, and transporting natural liquids, including propane gas, for use as end-use fuels or feedstocks for chemical manufacturing
  • Propane gas storage, transmission, and distribution centers

Water and Wastewater

  • Operational staff at water authorities
  • Operational staff at community water systems
  • Operational staff at wastewater treatment facilities
  • Workers repairing water and wastewater conveyances

Transportation and Logistics

  • Employees supporting or enabling transportation functions, including dispatchers, maintenance and repair technicians, warehouse workers, truck stop and rest area workers, and workers that maintain and inspect infrastructure (including those that require cross-border travel)
  • Taxis, transportation services including Transportation Network Companies, and delivery services including Delivery Network Companies
  • Maritime transportation workers – port workers, mariners, equipment operators
  • Automotive repair and maintenance facilities
  • Postal and shipping workers, to include private companies
  • Employees who repair and maintain vehicles, aircraft, rail equipment, marine vessels, and the equipment and infrastructure that enables operations that encompass movement of cargo and passengers

Communications and Information Technology

  • Maintenance of communications infrastructure- including privately owned and maintained communication systems- supported by technicians, operators, call-centers, wireline and wireless providers, cable service providers, satellite operations, undersea cable landing stations, Internet Exchange Points, and manufacturers and distributors of communications equipment
  • Engineers, technicians and associated personnel responsible for infrastructure construction and restoration, including contractors for construction and engineering of fiber optic cables
  • Installation, maintenance and repair technicians that establish, support or repair service as needed
  • Customer service and support staff, including managed and professional services as well as remote providers of support to transitioning employees to set up and maintain home offices, who interface with customers to manage or support service environments and security issues, including payroll, billing, fraud, and troubleshooting
  • Dispatchers involved with service repair and restoration
  • Data center operators, including system administrators, HVAC & electrical engineers, security personnel, IT managers, data transfer solutions engineers, software and hardware engineers, and database administrators
  • Client service centers, field engineers, and other technicians supporting critical infrastructure, as well as manufacturers and supply chain vendors that provide hardware and software, and information technology equipment (to include microelectronics and semiconductors) for critical infrastructure
  • Workers supporting the provision of essential global, national and local infrastructure for computing services (incl. cloud computing services), business infrastructure, web-based services, and critical manufacturing
  • Support required for continuity of services, including janitorial/cleaning personnel

Other Community-Based Government Operations and Essential Functions

  • The Courts, consistent with guidance released by the California Chief Justice
  • Security staff to maintain building access control and physical security measures
  • Weather forecasters
  • Construction Workers who support the construction, operation, inspection, and maintenance of construction sites and construction projects (including housing construction)
  • Workers such as plumbers, electricians, exterminators, and other service providers who provide services that are necessary to maintaining the safety, sanitation, and essential operation of construction sites and construction projects
  • Commercial Retail Stores, that supply essential sectors, including convenience stores, pet supply stores, auto supplies and repair, hardware and home improvement, and home appliance retailers
  • Workers supporting the entertainment industries, studios, and other related establishments, provided they follow covid-19 public health guidance around social distancing
  • Workers critical to operating Rental Car companies that facilitate continuity of operations for essential workforces, and other essential travel
  • Workers that provide or determine eligibility for food, shelter, in-home supportive services, child welfare, adult protective services and social services, and other necessities of life for economically disadvantaged or otherwise needy individuals (including family members)
  • Professional services, such as legal or accounting services, when necessary to assist in compliance with legally mandated activities and critical sector services

Financial Services

  • Workers who are needed to process and maintain systems for processing financial transactions and services (e.g., payment, clearing, and settlement; wholesale funding; insurance services; and capital markets activities)

Defense Industrial Base

  • Workers who support the essential services required to meet national security commitments to the federal government and U.S. Military. These individuals, include but are not limited to, aerospace; mechanical and software engineers, manufacturing/production workers; IT support; security staff; security personnel; intelligence support, aircraft and weapon system mechanics and maintainers
  • Personnel working for companies, and their subcontractors, who perform under contract to the Department of Defense providing materials and services to the Department of Defense, and government-owned/contractor-operated and government-owned/government-operated facilities

Even if you are in one of the designated critical infrastructure workers or provide essential services, employers are encouraged to have employees work from home when possible. When that is not possible, employers and employees should

  • Wash hands with soap and water for at least 20 seconds
  • ·        Cover your cough or sneeze with a tissue
  • ·        Clean and disinfect frequently touched objects and surfaces
  • ·        If soap and water aren’t available, use alcohol-based hand sanitizer
  • Maintain social distance of 6 feet whenever possible

This is a highly stressful time for employees, employers and the community. The landscape changes quickly, and it can be difficult to stay on top of current rules and regulations without becoming overwhelmed. Take a deep breath. Focus on what’s in front of you.

The Nuddleman Law Firm, P.C. is open and helping clients during the shelter-in-place and stay-at-home orders. Our response time might not be as quick due to the volume of questions. I will do my best to send periodic updates and best practices to my clients. If you have questions or concerns, call me. If you get my voicemail, leave a message and I will return to your call as soon as practical.

Information provided by Robert Nuddleman of the Nuddleman Law Firm, P.C.

Feel free to suggest topics for the blog. We are happy to consider topics pertaining to general points of Labor and Employment Law. We cannot answer questions about specific situations or provide legal advice over the Internet. If you desire legal advice, you should contact an attorney.

Using this blog does not create an attorney-client relationship between you and Nuddleman Law Firm, P.C. Using the Internet or this blog to communicate with the firm does not establish an attorney-client relationship. Do not post confidential or time-sensitive information in this blog. The Nuddleman Law Firm, P.C. cannot guarantee the confidentiality of anything posted on this blog.

The Nuddleman Law Firm, P.C. represents employers and employees in a wide range of employment law matters. Much of his practice focuses on wage and hour issues, such as unpaid overtime, meal and rest break violations, designing or enforcing commission plans, and other wage-related claims. He also advises employers on how to avoid harassment and wrongful termination claims and represents employees who have been victims of unlawful discrimination, retaliation or harassment. The Nuddleman Law Firm, P.C. helps employers develop good employment policies, and helps employers and employees with disability accommodation issues.

New Employment Laws for 2020 Signed by Governor Newsom

The California legislature and Gavin Newsom have been busy in 2019. The following is a list of the new legislation impacting California employers. Most laws go into effect January 1, 2020, but a few go into effect immediately.

Thank you to Phyllis Cheng who does an amazing job sending out updates whenever new employment laws are signed into law and when courts issue decision impacting California workplaces.

  • AB 5 by Assemblymember Lorena Gonzalez (D-San Diego) – Worker status: employees and independent contractors. A signing message can be found here.
  • AB 9 by Assemblymember Eloise Gómez Reyes (D-Grand Terrace) – Employment discrimination: limitation of actions.
  • AB 34 by Assemblymember James Ramos (D-Highland) – Pupils: bullying and harassment prevention information.
  • AB 51 by Assemblymember Lorena Gonzalez (D-San Diego) – Employment discrimination: enforcement.
  • AB 118 by the Committee on Budget – State employment: State Bargaining Units 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 11, 13, 14, 15, 17, 20, and 21.
  • AB 170 by Assemblymember Lorena Gonzalez (D-San Diego) – Worker status: employees and independent contractors.
  • AB 203 by Assemblymember Rudy Salas (D-Bakersfield) – Occupational safety and health: Valley Fever.
  • AB 241 by Assemblymember Sydney Kamlager-Dove (D-Los Angeles) – Implicit bias: medical profession continuing education: requirements.
  • AB 242 by Assemblymember Sydney Kamlager-Dove (D-Los Angeles) – Courts: attorneys: implicit bias: training.
  • AB 267 by Assemblymember Kansen Chu (D-San Jose) – Employment of infants: entertainment industry.
  • AB 332 by Assemblymember Tom Lackey (R-Palmdale) – Peace officers: training.
  • AB 330 by Assemblymember Jesse Gabriel (D-Encino) – Appointed legal counsel in civil cases.
  • AB 333 by Assemblymember Susan Talamantes Eggman (D-Stockton) – Whistleblower protection: county patients’ rights advocates.
  • AB 355 by Assemblymember Tom Daly (D-Anaheim) – Public Employment Relations Board: Orange County Transportation Authority.
  • AB 378, Monique Limόn (D-Santa Barbara) Childcare: family childcare providers: bargaining representative
  • AB 381 by Assemblymember Eloise Gómez Reyes (D-Grand Terrace) – Postsecondary education: sexual assault and sexual violence prevention training: intimate partner and dating violence.
  • AB 406 Monique Limόn (D-Santa Barbara) – Disability compensation: paid family leave: application in non-English languages.
  • AB 525 by Assemblymember Luz Rivas (D-Arleta) – Teacher credentialing.
  • AB 538 by Assemblymember Marc Berman (D-Palo Alto) – Sexual assault: medical evidentiary examinations and reporting.
  • AB 543 by Assemblymember Christy Smith (D-Santa Clarita) – Education: sexual harassment: written policy: posters.
  • AB 547 by Assemblymember Lorena Gonzalez (D-San Diego) – Janitorial workers: sexual violence and harassment prevention training.
  • AB 560 by Assemblymember Miguel Santiago (D-Los Angeles) – Public utilities: unionization.
  • AB 595 by Assemblymember Jose Medina (D-Riverside) – Community colleges: apprenticeship programs.
  • AB 640 by Assemblymember Jim Frazier (D-Discovery Bay) – Sex crimes: investigation and prosecution.
  • AB 644 by the Committee on Public Employment and Retirement – State teachers’ retirement: compensation.
  • AB 672 by Assemblymember Sabrina Cervantes (D-Riverside) – Public employees’ retirement: disability retirement: reinstatement.
  • AB 673 by Assemblymember Wendy Carrillo (D-Los Angeles) – Failure to pay wages: penalties.
  • AB 706 by Assemblymember Evan Low (D-Campbell) – Community colleges: academic employees.
  • AB 711 by Assemblymember David Chiu (D-San Francisco) – Pupil records: name and gender changes.
  • AB 749 by Assemblymember Mark Stone (D-Scotts Valley) – Settlement agreements: restraints in trade.
  • AB 800 by Assemblymember Kansen Chu (D-San Jose) – Civil actions: confidentiality.
  • AB 894 by Assemblymember Miguel Santiago (D-Los Angeles) – Attorney General: directors and employees: exemption from civil service.
  • AB 988 by Assemblymember Marc Berman (D-Palo Alto) – Teacher credentialing: out-of-state prepared teachers: education specialist credential.
  • AB 1019 by Assemblymember Jim Frazier (D-Discovery Bay) – Apprenticeship: developmentally disabled persons.
  • AB 1033 by Assemblymember Jim Cooper (D-Elk Grove) – State employment: new employees: information.
  • AB 1152 by Assemblymember Chris Holden (D-Pasadena) – Vital records.
  • AB 1116 by Assemblymember Tim Grayson (D-Concord) — California Firefighter Peer Support and Crisis Referral; firefighters: peer support.
  • AB 1223 by Assemblymember Joaquin Arambula (D-Fresno) – Living organ donation.
  • AB 1320 by Assemblymember Adrin Nazarian (D-North Hollywood) – Public employee retirement systems: prohibited investments: Turkey.
  • AB 1349 by Assemblymember Jay Obernolte (R-Big Bear Lake) – Civil actions: discovery.
  • AB 1353 by Assemblymember Buffy Wicks (D-Oakland) – Classified employees: probationary period.
  • AB 1400 by Assemblymember Sydney Kamlager-Dove (D-Los Angeles) – Employment safety: firefighting equipment: mechanics.
  • AB 1452 by Assemblymember Patrick O’Donnell (D-Long Beach) – State teachers’ retirement.
  • AB 1510 by Assemblymember Eloise Gómez Reyes (D-Grand Terrace) – Sexual assault and other sexual misconduct: statutes of limitations on civil actions.
  • AB 1518 by Assemblymember Kansen Chu (D-San Jose) – Student athletes: contracts.
  • AB 1554 by Assemblymember Lorena Gonzalez (D-San Diego) – Employers: dependent care assistance program: notice to employees.
  • AB 1651 by Assemblymember Jose Medina (D-Riverside) – Licensed educational psychologists: supervision of associates and trainees.
  • AB 1607 by Assemblymember Tasha Boerner Horvath (D-Encinitas) – Gender discrimination: notification.
  • AB 1735 by Assemblymember Rebecca Bauer-Kahan (D-Orinda) – Evidence: privileges: human trafficking caseworker-victim privilege.
  • AB 1748 by Assemblymember Rob Bonta (D-Alameda) – California Family Rights Act: flight crews.
  • AB 1768 by Assemblymember Wendy Carrillo (D-Los Angeles) – Prevailing wage: public works.
  • AB 1805 by the Committee on Labor and Employment – Occupational safety and health.
  • AB 1820 by the Committee on Judiciary – Personal rights: civil liability and enforcement.
  • SB 17 by Senator Thomas Umberg (D-Santa Ana) – Civil discovery: sanctions.
  • SB 30 by Senator Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco) – Domestic partnership.
  • SB 41 by Senator Robert Hertzberg (D-Van Nuys) – Civil actions: damages.
  • SB 103 by the Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review – State employees: memorandum of understanding.
  • SB 142 by Senator Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco) – Employees: lactation accommodation.
  • SB 173 by Senator Bill Dodd (D-Napa) – CalFresh: postsecondary student eligibility: work-study.
  • SB 188, Mitchell. CROWN Act: Discrimination: hairstyles.
  • SB 206 by Senator Nancy Skinner (D-Berkeley) – Pay to Play Act, Collegiate athletics: student athlete compensation and representation.
  • SB 229 by Senator Robert Hertzberg (D-Van Nuys) – Discrimination: complaints: administrative review.
  • SB 271 by Senator Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco) – Employment: motion picture production workers.
  • SB 322 by Senator Steven Bradford (D-Gardena) – Health facilities: inspections: employee reporting.
  • SB 366 by Senator Ling Ling Chang (R-Diamond Bar) – Public postsecondary education: mandatory orientation for students.
  • SB 370 by Senator Thomas Umberg (D-Santa Ana) – Discovery: response to inspection demands.
  • SB 438 by Senator Robert Hertzberg (D-Van Nuys) –  Emergency medical services: dispatch.
  • SB 530 by Senator Cathleen Galgiani (D-Stockton) – Construction industry: discrimination and harassment prevention.
  • SB 534 by Senator Steven Bradford (D-Gardena) – Insurers: minority, women, LGBT, veteran, and disabled veteran business enterprises.
  • SB 542 by Senator Henry Stern (D-Canoga Park) – Trauma Treatment Act; workers’ compensation.
  • SB 544 by Senator Thomas Umberg (D-Santa Ana) – State Bar: admission: license: moral character review: mental health medical records.
  • SB 616 by Senator Bob Wieckowski (D-Fremont) – Enforcement of money judgments: exemptions.
  • SB 671 by Senator Robert Hertzberg (D-Van Nuys) – Employment: payment of wages: print shoot employees.
  • SB 688 by Senator Bill Monning (D-Carmel) – Failure to pay wages: penalties.
  • SB 698 by Senator Connie Leyva (D-Chino) – Employee wages: payment.
  • SB 707 by Senator Bob Wieckowski (D-Fremont) – Arbitration agreements: enforcement.
  • SB 778 by the Committee on Labor, Public Employment and Retirement – Employers: sexual harassment training: requirements.
  • SB 782 by the Committee on Labor, Public Employment and Retirement – Public employees’ and judges’ retirement: administration.

Information provided by Robert Nuddleman of the Nuddleman Law Firm, P.C.

Feel free to suggest topics for the blog. We are happy to consider topics pertaining to general points of Labor and Employment Law. We cannot answer questions about specific situations or provide legal advice over the Internet. If you desire legal advice, you should contact an attorney.

Using this blog does not create an attorney-client relationship between you and Nuddleman Law Firm, P.C. Using the Internet or this blog to communicate with the firm does not establish an attorney-client relationship. Do not post confidential or time-sensitive information in this blog. The Nuddleman Law Firm, P.C. cannot guarantee the confidentiality of anything posted on this blog.

The Nuddleman Law Firm, P.C. represents employers and employees in a wide range of employment law matters. Much of his practice focuses on wage and hour issues, such as unpaid overtime, meal and rest break violations, designing or enforcing commission plans, and other wage-related claims. He also advises employers on how to avoid harassment and wrongful termination claims and represents employees who have been victims of unlawful discrimination, retaliation or harassment. The Nuddleman Law Firm, P.C. helps employers develop good employment policies, and helps employers and employees with disability accommodation issues.

Non-Solicitation Clause Unenforceable

Court Decision Casts Doubt on Non-Solicitation Clauses

California is known for its strong prohibition on almost all forms of “non-compete” clauses. The Business and Professions Code states that “every contract by which anyone is restrained from engaging in a lawful profession, trade, or business of any kind is to that extent void” (§16600). California courts have consistently held this statute makes it illegal for employers to make workers sign contracts limiting their freedom to work for competitors or in certain industries after termination.

However, the legality of “non-solicitation” clauses has been less clear. A new case from the Court of Appeal clarifies that certain types of non-solicitation clauses are illegal, ruling that certain non-solicitation clauses also violate Section 16600.

What AMN Healthcare v. Aya Healthcare Services Means for Employers and Employees

This case involved recruiters who signed a contract preventing them from “soliciting any employee” to leave the company for a year after they left the company. It did not stop employees from working for a competitor. It just prevented former employees from soliciting AMN’s current employees.

The court held this contract was still illegal, primarily because as recruiters, their sole job is to solicit prospective employees. By limiting who the recruiters could seek, the contract violated Section 16600. While this may seem like a limited case, it could have further repercussions.

The Court set the stage for further restrictions and confirmed the “rule of reasonableness” does not apply in non-compete agreements. It is important for employers to review any NDAs or confidentiality agreements they utilize to ensure that they don’t run afoul of the law, and contact our offices if there is any uncertainty. Employers can still prohibit employees from using confidential trade secrets to solicit former co-workers.

California law governing non-competes and all other sorts of employment conditions can be onerous and confusing, for both employees and employers. If you need assistance drafting employment contracts or feel your employer made you sign an illegal contract, contact the Nuddleman Law Firm, P.C. for legal guidance.

Written by J.T. Keane, edited by Robert Nuddleman; Nuddleman Law Firm, P.C.

Feel free to suggest topics for the blog. We are happy to consider topics pertaining to general points of Labor and Employment Law. We cannot answer questions about specific situations or provide legal advice over the Internet. If you desire legal advice, you should contact an attorney.

Using this blog does not create an attorney-client relationship between you and Nuddleman Law Firm, P.C. Using the Internet or this blog to communicate with the firm does not establish an attorney-client relationship. Do not post confidential or time-sensitive information in this blog. The Nuddleman Law Firm, P.C. cannot guarantee the confidentiality of anything posted on this blog.

The Nuddleman Law Firm, P.C. represents employers and employees in a wide range of employment law matters. Much of his practice focuses on wage and hour issues, such as unpaid overtime, meal and rest break violations, designing or enforcing commission plans, and other wage-related claims. He also advises employers on how to avoid harassment and wrongful termination claims, and represents employees who have been victims of unlawful discrimination, retaliation or harassment. The Nuddleman Law Firm, P.C. helps employers develop good employment policies, and helps employers and employees with disability accommodation issues.

Independent Contractor Analysis Gets Modified…Again

Further Clarification of the Employee vs. Independent Contractor Question

The distinction between employees and independent contractors is imperative to workers and businesses. Employees enjoy many more protections and benefits than independent contractors and therefore place a bigger legal burden on employers. Last year, in Dynamex, the California Supreme Court made the legal gray area of worker classification less hazy, and a new case, Garcia v. Border Transportation Group, provides further clarity.

Review of the Dynamex “ABC Test”

We covered Dynamex last year, but its importance to workers and businesses warrants a review. The Supreme Court set out a three-part legal standard (the “ABC test”) for independent contractor status. Part A requires independent contractors to be free from control by the contracting business. Part B requires contractors to perform work that is not in the normal scope of the contracting business. Finally, part C requires contractors to have their own independent business. If these qualifications are not met, the worker must be treated as an employee under Industrial Welfare Commission wage orders.

The Impact of Garcia

The ABC test does not apply to all areas of employment law, however. In Garcia, the Court of Appeal carves out important exceptions to this standard. The Dynamex decision only applies to wage orders, not other statutes or regulations. Wage orders require employers to pay the minimum wage, allow certain meal and rest breaks, provide itemized wage statements to employees, and other basic employment requirements. Other laws, such as Workers’ Compensation law to non-wage order claims don’t fall under the Dynamex standard. These statutes typically rely on a standard set in S. G. Borello & Sons, Inc. v. Department of Industrial Relations, which primarily relies on “whether the person to whom the service is rendered has the right to control the manner and means of accomplishing the result desired.”

Correct classification of workers can be make or break for both sides of employment relationships. Whenever a dispute arises, or when developing hiring practices, contact the Nuddleman Law Firm, P.C. to ensure compliance with the law.

Written by J.T. Keane for Nuddleman Law Firm, P.C.

Feel free to suggest topics for the blog. We are happy to consider topics pertaining to general points of Labor and Employment Law. We cannot answer questions about specific situations or provide legal advice over the Internet. If you desire legal advice, you should contact an attorney.

Using this blog does not create an attorney-client relationship between you and Nuddleman Law Firm, P.C. Using the Internet or this blog to communicate with the firm does not establish an attorney-client relationship. Do not post confidential or time-sensitive information in this blog. The Nuddleman Law Firm, P.C. cannot guarantee the confidentiality of anything posted on this blog.

The Nuddleman Law Firm, P.C. represents employers and employees in a wide range of employment law matters. Much of his practice focuses on wage and hour issues, such as unpaid overtime, meal and rest break violations, designing or enforcing commission plans, and other wage-related claims. He also advises employers on how to avoid harassment and wrongful termination claims, and represents employees who have been victims of unlawful discrimination, retaliation or harassment. The Nuddleman Law Firm, P.C. helps employers develop good employment policies, and helps employers and employees with disability accommodation issues.

S.F. Minimum Wage Increases

San Francisco minimum wage increases to $15.59 per hour on July 1, 2019.

San Francisco, like many cities and counties in California, adopted a minimum wage rate higher than California or Federal minimum wage. The minimum wage increased to $15.00 on July 1, 2018, and now will increase each year based on the Consumer Price Index.

The City calculated the July 1, 2019 rate using the process required by S.F. Admin Code Section 12R.4. The Consumer Price Index for urban and clerical workers in the San Francisco area increased 3.934% between 2017 and 2018. The City applied that increase to the current $15.00 minimum wage to find the new July 1, 2019 rate of $15.59. 

Employers must display the San Francisco Minimum Wage Poster informing employees of their rights. Download a PDF of the 8.5″x14″ poster.

For more information, visit www.sfgov.org/olse/mwo. You can also call (415) 554-6292 or email mwo@sfgov.org.

Other cities and counties with minimum wage increases above California and Federal minimum wage include:

  • Belmont
  • Berkeley
  • Cupertino
  • El Cerrito
  • Emeryville
  • Los Altos
  • Los Angeles
  • Los Angeles County
  • Malibu
  • Milpitas
  • Mountain View
  • Oakland
  • Palo Alto
  • Pasadena
  • Redwood City
  • Richmond
  • San Diego
  • San Francisco
  • San Jose
  • San Leandro
  • San Mateo
  • Santa Clara
  • Santa Monica
  • Sunnyvale

Original article by Robert E. Nuddleman of Nuddleman Law Firm, P.C.

Feel free to suggest topics for the blog. We are happy to consider topics pertaining to general points of Labor and Employment Law. We cannot answer questions about specific situations or provide legal advice over the Internet. If you desire legal advice, you should contact an attorney.

Using this blog does not create an attorney-client relationship between you and Nuddleman Law Firm, P.C. Using the Internet or this blog to communicate with the firm does not establish an attorney-client relationship. Do not post confidential or time-sensitive information in this blog. The Nuddleman Law Firm, P.C. cannot guarantee the confidentiality of anything posted on this blog.

The Nuddleman Law Firm, P.C. represents employees and businesses throughout Silicon Valley and the greater San Francisco Bay Area including Pleasanton, Oakland, San Ramon, Hayward, Palo Alto, Menlo Park, Mountain View, Los Altos, San Jose, the South Bay Area, Campbell, Los Gatos, Cupertino, Morgan Hill, Gilroy, Sunnyvale, Santa Cruz, Saratoga, and Alameda, San Mateo, Santa Clara, San Benito, Mendocino, and Calaveras counties.

Fall 2018 New Employment Laws – Part 5 – Safety Issues

Fall 2018 New Employment Laws – Part 5

2018 has closed and 2019 has begun. This is our final recap of new employment laws in California. The Legislature expanded human trafficking awareness training for certain classes of employers and made changes to workplace health and safety requirements. Employers and employees should ensure they are up to date with these new employment laws.

New Employment Laws Regarding Human Trafficking Awareness

Two new laws require employers to train certain employees who might come into contact with victims of human trafficking or receive reports about such activity. AB 2034 requires “intercity passenger rail or light rail stations” and “bus stations,” to provide at least 20 minutes of training about human trafficking to employees who might interact with victims or receive reports of such activity. Training must include the definition of different types of trafficking, common misconceptions, warning signs, and how to report trafficking. This requirement applies to new and existing employees.

SB 970 is similar, but applies to hotels and motels. It is important to note that existing law requires many businesses, including airports, ERs, rest areas, job recruitment centers, and truck stops, to post notices that include human trafficking hotline and aid organization information.

New Employment Laws Regarding Workplace Health and Safety

AB 2334 changes the amount of time employers are required to keep injury and illness records. This law requires businesses to maintain records for five years. This is in response to recent federal regulatory changes, and more state actions may come in the new year. Another law has little immediate impact on employers but might be a sign of future shifts in the regulatory landscape.

SB 1113 creates a committee to create voluntary standards for workplace mental health. While this framework remains entirely optional for the time being, it signals a new focus on ensuring protections for employees’ mental health in addition to their physical health on the job.

As always, contact our offices with any questions about employment law or if you are in need of legal services. Happy New Year!

Provided by the Nuddleman Law Firm, P.C.

Written by J.T. Keane and edited by Robert E. Nuddleman

Feel free to suggest topics for the blog. We are happy to consider topics pertaining to general points of Labor and Employment Law. We cannot answer questions about specific situations or provide legal advice over the Internet. If you desire legal advice, you should contact an attorney.

Using this blog does not create an attorney-client relationship between you and Nuddleman Law Firm, P.C. Using the Internet or this blog to communicate with the firm does not establish an attorney-client relationship. Do not post confidential or time-sensitive information in this blog. The Nuddleman Law Firm, P.C. cannot guarantee the confidentiality of anything posted on this blog.

The Nuddleman Law Firm, P.C. represents employers and employees in a wide range of employment law matters. Much of his practice focuses on wage and hour issues, such as unpaid overtime, meal and rest break violations, designing or enforcing commission plans, and other wage-related claims. He also advises employers on how to avoid harassment and wrongful termination claims and represents employees who have been victims of unlawful discrimination, retaliation or harassment. The Nuddleman Law Firm, P.C. helps employers develop good employment policies, and helps employers and employees with disability accommodation issues.

The Nuddleman Law Firm, P.C. represents employees and businesses throughout Silicon Valley and the greater San Francisco Bay Area including Pleasanton, Oakland, San Ramon, Hayward, Palo Alto, Menlo Park, Mountain View, Los Altos, San Jose, the South Bay Area, Campbell, Los Gatos, Cupertino, Morgan Hill, Gilroy, Sunnyvale, Santa Cruz, Saratoga, and Alameda, San Mateo, Santa Clara, San Benito, Mendocino, and Calaveras counties.

Fall 2018 New Employment Laws – Part 4 – Sexual Harassment

New Sexual Harassment Laws

Over the past year, many prominent entertainers and public figures have been brought down by accusations of sexual misconduct. The #MeToo movement changed our culture, bringing to light issues of sexual harassment and assault left in the dark for years. The movement reached the California Legislature, who passed many new sexual harassment laws this year expanding employee protections and increasing employer liability. There is also a new requirement for gender representation on corporate boards.  Some changes are narrowly targeted, while others impact most or all California businesses. All will have a major impact on California employers and employees.

Broad New Sexual Harassment Protections

Defamation Protection: AB 2770 protects people who report sexual harassment from libel or defamation suits. It exempts both an employee’s credible reports of sexual harassment and an employer’s communications about these reports from claims of defamation. It also makes the law clear that past employers can say whether they would rehire an employee and whether that determination is based on claims of sexual harassment when asked for references. Accusations based on malice or lacking credibility are exempt from this protection.

Confidentiality Clauses and Nondisclosure Agreements: The Legislature limited confidentiality clauses in certain settlement agreements. In lawsuits regarding sexual assault, sexual harassment, or any other sex-based harassment (such as in the workplace or housing), settlement agreements can no longer require confidentiality. SB 820 provides an exception to keep victims’ identities secret, however. And AB 3109 prohibits any clauses in nondisclosure agreements that prevent people from testifying in court or administrative hearings about criminal conduct or sexual harassment. Both these provisions go into effect on January 1st, 2019.

Training: SB 1343 expands new sexual harassment prevention training to all employers with five or more employees. Going into effect on January 1st, 2020, all companies covered must provide two hours of training to supervisors and one hour of training to all other employees within six months of hire, and again every two years.

Training must contain information about “the federal and state statutory provisions concerning the prohibition against and the prevention and correction of sexual harassment and the remedies available to victims of sexual harassment in employment.” Temporary employees must be trained “within 30 calendar days after the hire date or within 100 hours worked, whichever occurs first” and temp agencies must perform this training. Employers with 50 or more employees are already required to provide this training.

SB 1300: The California Legislature made many broad changed to employment practices and sexual harassment laws with SB 1300. First, it prohibited employers from requiring employees waive rights to sue or make other claims under the  Fair Employment and Housing Act in exchange for a job, raise, or bonus. This prohibition also applies to non-disparagement agreements that prevent employees from talking about unlawful conduct in a workplace.

Second, the Legislaturemade businesses liable for any unlawful harassment of employees, interns,applicants, or contractors by non-employees “if the employer, or its agents orsupervisors, knows or should have known of the conduct and fails” to act.Essentially, “An entity shall take all reasonable steps to prevent harassmentfrom occurring” under its watch. Third, this law prevents defendants who win inFEHA lawsuits from being awarded fees and costs unless the suit is frivolous or ungrounded. 

Industry-Specific Sexual Harassment Changes

Not every change is so sweeping. Many new laws passed this year touch only certain sectors of the economy:

Talent Agencies: AB 2338 requires talentagencies in California to provide materials about “sexual harassmentprevention, retaliation, and reporting resources” and “nutrition and eatingdisorders” to adult artists in a language they understand. It also requiresminors and their legal guardians to receive sexual harassment preventiontraining before they receive an entertainment industry work permit. Talentagencies must keep three years of records as proof of training.

California Legislature: The Legislature triedto clean up its own workplace. AB 403 makes it a crime for legislators or theirstaff to interfere in a whistleblower’s disclosure of violations or retaliatesagainst them. SB 419 further protests legislative staff or lobbyists fromretaliation and requires the Legislature to keep complaint records for 12years.

Professionals: Current law makes professionals liable for sexual harassment in a professional relationship when it is difficult for the victim to end that relationship. SB 224 adds investors, elected officials, lobbyists, directors, and producers to this category, which also includes lawyers, doctors, social workers, real estate agents, bankers, and any“substantially similar” professional relationship setups.

Gender Representation

The Legislature also took steps toward requiring gender parity on corporate boards. SB 826 requires publicly heldcorporations based in California to have at least one female director on itsboard by the end of 2019. By the end of 2021, the requirement is bumped up totwo or three women depending on the board’s size. The CA Secretary of Statewill post the number of companies in compliance on its website, and can finethose who are not.

2018 was a big year for new sexual harassment and gender-related employment laws. It can be very confusing for employers to keep track of their requirements and employees to stay informed of their rights. If you have questions, contact Robert Nuddleman.

Provided by the Nuddleman Law Firm, P.C.

Written by J.T. Keane and edited by Robert E. Nuddleman

Feel free to suggest topics for the blog. We are happy to consider topics pertaining to general points of Labor and Employment Law. We cannot answer questions about specific situations or provide legal advice over the Internet. If you desire legal advice, you should contact an attorney.

Using this blog does not create an attorney-client relationship between you and Nuddleman Law Firm, P.C. Using the Internet or this blog to communicate with the firm does not establish an attorney-client relationship. Do not post confidential or time-sensitive information in this blog. The Nuddleman Law Firm, P.C. cannot guarantee the confidentiality of anything posted on this blog.

The Nuddleman Law Firm, P.C. represents employers and employees in a wide range of employment law matters. Much of his practice focuses on wage and hour issues, such as unpaid overtime, meal and rest break violations, designing or enforcing commission plans, and other wage-related claims. He also advises employers on how to avoid harassment and wrongful termination claims and represents employees who have been victims of unlawful discrimination, retaliation or harassment. The Nuddleman Law Firm, P.C. helps employers develop good employment policies, and helps employers and employees with disability accommodation issues.

The Nuddleman Law Firm, P.C. represents employees and businesses throughout Silicon Valley and the greater San Francisco Bay Area including Pleasanton, Oakland, San Ramon, Hayward, Palo Alto, Menlo Park, Mountain View, Los Altos, San Jose, the South Bay Area, Campbell, Los Gatos, Cupertino, Morgan Hill, Gilroy, Sunnyvale, Santa Cruz, Saratoga, and Alameda, San Mateo, Santa Clara, San Benito, Mendocino, and Calaveras counties.