Wealthy Californians, and more importantly, their children and grandchildren, can pop that champagne. The bill that would have imposed a California gift, estate, and generation skipping transfer tax appears to be dead – – at least for now. It will not get a floor vote in the California Legislature. Absent a floor vote, the California bill will not obtain the required approval of the California Legislature to put it on the November 2020 ballot. (more…)
When the law was signed by then Governor Brown (see our prior Alert here), the expectation was that Attorney General Becerra would issue the enabling regulations by July of this year, which would allow a phase-in period. Then by January 1, 2020, the requirements would be clear and companies would be able to properly formulate and implement their compliance policies. Regretfully, things are not going as expected.
First, in accordance with the law, General Becerra organized a series of public meetings: (more…)
Recently, the California Court of Appeals ruled in a 2-1 split decision that employees who are required to call in two hours prior to the start of their shifts to ask whether they needed to report to work are entitled to reporting time pay. In Ward v. Tilly’s, Inc., the Court held that Tilly’s on-call policy triggered the “Reporting Time Pay” provision of California’s Wage Order 7, which applies to the retail industry. The Ward majority held that Wage Order 7’s Reporting Time Pay provision applied because Tilly’s workers “reported” for work when they called-in.
Under the Reporting Time Pay provision, employers are required to pay employees reporting time pay, as follows: “Each workday an employee is required to report for work and does report, but is not put to work or is furnished less than half said employee’s usual or scheduled day’s work, the employee shall be paid for half the usual or scheduled day’s work, but in no event for less than two (2) hours nor more than four (4) hours, at the employee’s regular rate of pay.” For example, if a sales clerk is scheduled to report to work for an eight-hour shift and only works for one hour, the employer is still obligated to pay the employee four hours of his or her regular rate of pay. (more…)
New Proposition 65 safe harbor warnings will take effect on August 30, 2018. While these new warnings relate to a wide range of goods and services, we are focused on changes that impact consumer products due to the focus of our clientele. If you are currently subject to Prop 65, you will continue to be subject to its requirements. If you are not currently impacted, you may be under the new rules!
Warnings are now expressly required on your website! Internet warnings – “a warning that complies with the content requirements of Section 25603(a) must also be provided by including either the warning or a clearly marked hyperlink using the word “WARNING” on the product display page, or by otherwise prominently displaying the warning to the purchaser prior to completing the purchase.” The Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment or OEHHA (the California state agency which oversees Prop 65) noted the following: “Some online retail sellers who currently provide an internet warning do so by providing the warning as a pop-up when the purchaser enters a California zip code. This is an example of a way to prominently display ‘the warning to the purchaser prior to completing the purchase’ as required by the regulation.” (more…)
As the Department of Homeland Security continues to phase in the requirements of the REAL ID Act, some domestic airline travelers may be prohibited from using their state-issued driver’s license or ID card in order to board their flight.
After January 22, 2018, state-issued driver’s licenses and IDs may be used for domestic airline travel only if they were issued by a state which is in compliance with the REAL ID Act or has been granted an extension by the Secretary of Homeland Security. Currently, all 50 US states, Puerto Rico, Guam, and the US Virgin Islands are either in compliance with the REAL ID Act or have been granted an extension by the Secretary of Homeland Security. The only US nationals impacted by the January 22, 2018 date are individuals who possess driver’s licenses or IDs issued by American Samoa or the Northern Mariana Islands. (more…)
Breaking out the bubbly is a hallowed part of the New Year’s Eve tradition, but this year, as the clock strikes twelve and we look to usher in 2018; what you see and hear bubbling may be coming from a bong – and not from a champagne glass. This is because on January 1, 2018, California’s adult-use cannabis regulations will come into effect. Although the voters approved Proposition 64 (and pretty handily, too) at the November 2016 election, it took the powers that be time to craft the applicable regulations. While medicinal marijuana has existed for two decades in California (Proposition 215, 1996), the new year will bring major changes, as cannabis will be for sale in the so-called “recreational” markets.
Here are some highlights: (more…)
California Governor Jerry Brown has signed the Immigrant Worker Protection Act (AB 450), which restricts public and private employers in California from admitting immigration inspectors to the workplace without a judicial warrant. It also requires employers to notify their employees before and after certain immigration inspections take place. The new law, which adds Sections 7285.1, 7285.2, and 7285.3 to the California Government Code, and Sections 90.2 and 1019.2 to the California Labor Code, will take effect on January 1, 2018.
In conflict with the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s (ICE) plans to increase enforcement actions under the Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA), which includes criminal and civil penalties for employers who knowingly employ unauthorized workers; the new California law seeks to protect foreign workers from unfair immigration-related practices, potentially causing problems for employers who must comply with federal and state laws. (more…)
By Aaron Wais
An appellate court in Pennsylvania recently dismissed an employee class action against their employer over a data breach, holding that the employer did not have a duty to protect its employees’ personal information (e.g., names, birth dates, social security numbers, bank information, etc.). While this was a significant victory for employers, non-Pennsylvania employers should temper their enthusiasm because courts in other states, including California, have made clear that employers do have a legal duty to protect their employees’ personal information. These courts have also made clear that the liability for a data breach differs when an employer has legally compliant, written policies for safeguarding private information and responding to data breaches in a timely manner.