The California Supreme Court giveth with one hand and taketh away with the other. Dealers pay attention. This affects you.

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.

Employers who have used severance agreements involving a release of claims are probably familiar with the extra requirements for such agreements when the employee is 40 years or older. Specifically, under the Older Workers Benefits Protection Act (“OWBPA”) a release of age discrimination claims under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”) must meet certain “knowing and voluntary” elements to be enforceable.

Employers have long struggled to make sense of the changing laws regarding when to pay employees whom they don’t perceive as actually working but who aren’t entirely free. In May, we reported that in Ward v. Tilly’s, a California appellate court ruled that employees can be deemed to be “reporting to work” and entitled to reporting time pay for merely calling in to determine whether they must come to work.

Scali Rasmussen employees taking the chance for some local fun in Downtown LA at an Escape Room. They escaped with 2 mins to spare!

The Los Angeles Business Journal today published its list of the “Top Litigators in Los Angeles,” naming Scali Rasmussen Managing Partner, Christian Scali. Of the more than 350 nominations, only 50 professionals were selected. The list, according to the publication, includes those lawyers who “go to the proverbial mat to fight for their clients.” This is the second consecutive year that Scali has made the list.

In a recent decision by the California Court of Appeal, the Court confirmed that auto dealers cannot withhold a customer’s down payment after a sale is unwound as a result of the inability to secure financing, and that the DMV has authority to discipline a dealer for doing so, including suspension or revocation of the dealer’s license.

This article is a follow-up to an article discussing the future enactment of warning regulations for rental vehicles pursuant to California’s Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986, commonly known as “Proposition 65.” Since that article, the proposed regulations for rental vehicles have gone into effect and regulators have issued their “Final Statement of Reasons” explaining the purpose and intent of the regulations.

Last year, we discussed the significance of the case Troester v. Starbucks Corporation, in which the California Supreme Court found that the federal de minimis doctrine did not apply to the plaintiff’s class action claims brought under California law. The federal de minimis doctrine provides that “insubstantial or insignificant periods of time…which cannot as a practical administrative matter be precisely recorded for payroll purposes, may be disregarded.” In cases applying federal law, courts have regularly held that daily periods of up to 10 minutes of work are de minimis.