California’s Bathroom Bill

In 2016, Assembly Bill No. 1732, also known as the “All-Gender” Bathroom Bill (Bathroom Bill), was introduced to the California legislature and subsequently signed into law by Governor Brown.  The Bathroom Bill was sponsored by California NOW, Equality California, and the Transgender Law Center because “restrict[ing] access to single-occupancy restrooms by gender create problems of safety, fairness, and convenience.” And recently, the bill went into effect.

Before the Bathroom Bill

Class Action Update: Arbitration Clauses Cannot Bar Claims for Public Injunctive Relief

Today, many businesses use arbitration as a means of resolving claims that arise. Indeed, many California consumer agreements contain arbitration clauses.

However, the California Supreme Court recently narrowed the protection of arbitration agreements with class action waivers. Financial services entities and other businesses will be required to review their current contractual provisions to ensure compliance in the Golden State.

California Supreme Court: Public Employees’ Work-Related Texts and Emails on Private Devices are “Public Records”

According to the California Supreme Court, public employees’ communications about official agency business may be subject to California Public Records Act (CPRA). This extends to communications on personal computers, smartphones, tablets, etc…

While this is a case involving a public sector employer and the CPRA, I foresee that it may – and sooner than later — be relevant to private sector employers and “bring your own device” policies (more on those here), as well as private sector employees’ privacy interests.

Commission-Based Employees Must Be Paid for Rest Breaks

Employers: Did you know that inside sales commission-based employees must be separately paid for their rest breaks? In another win for employees across the state, a California court recently held that certain employees paid on commission are also covered by the Industrial Welfare Commission (IWC) Wage Order requirement that “rest period time shall be counted as hours worked for which there shall be no deduction from wages.” Last year, an appellate court held that employees who are paid on a piece-rate basis must be separately compensated for rest breaks and other non-productive time. Now, another Court of Appeals has extended this requirement to employees who are paid on a commission basis.

RPNA Wins Motion To Disqualify Opposing Counsel Based On Conflict Of Interest And Breech Of Confidentiality

Co-Managing Partner Nick Roxborough and co-counsel Jeffrey D. Farrow of Michelman & Robinson, recently won a motion to disqualify Nixon Peabody LLP from representing a plaintiff in an ongoing worker’s compensation dispute after the firm hired opposing defense counsel in the case. The decision, which was made by a Superior Court Judge in Orange County last Friday, was featured in the Daily Journal [subscription required].

Bonuses, Overtime Pay, and Class Actions

Overtime pay, or the alleged lack thereof, is an issue we regularly see pop up in the California courts. While California employers generally recognize that non-exempt employees (e.g. many hourly employees) who work overtime must receive overtime premiums on their base pay, not all are aware that these premiums may also be required on other, “supplemental” aspects of compensation to nonexempt employees. A common example? Bonuses.