Gov. Gavin Newsom signed AB 1867, which has three new laws combined into one bill. The bill covers supplemental sick leave requirements, a pilot mediation program for small employers and mandated hand-washing requirements for food workers.

A truck driver brought a claim under California’s Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) that his employer denied workers legally required meal and rest breaks, but a California appeals court blocked the lawsuit, since the same claims had been settled in a prior PAGA action.

Many employers delayed sexual-harassment-prevention training due to COVID-19 stay-at-home orders, but the Jan. 1, 2021 compliance deadline remains. In-person training continues to be difficult under state and county guidance, so employers may want to consider online training.

Many freelance journalists, musicians, translators and other workers in California can operate as independent contractors under a new law signed by Gov. Gavin Newsom on Sept. 4.

A California employee who alleged that she suffered egregious sexual harassment for most of the 10 years she was employed by a pool and spa construction business could bring a hostile work environment lawsuit despite the one-year statute of limitations generally applicable to such claims.

As the pandemic continues and many employees are still working from home, California businesses and HR departments must craft appropriate policies and procedures for expense reimbursements and workplace safety.

As fire season starts and some areas of California and several other states are attempting to contain wildfires, employers need to consider their obligations to employees.

The California legislative year has ended, and lawmakers sent multiple employment bills to Gov. Gavin Newsom for approval, including legislation that strengthens COVID-19 workplace protections, expands family and medical leave rights, and exempts certain workers from the state’s stringent independent-contractor test.

A California appeals court denied a teacher’s whistleblower retaliation claim, finding that he did not suffer an adverse employment action.

Supervisors’ comments that they did not know the employee was “that old” and asking her why she hadn’t yet retired were not sufficient to support an employee’s claim that she was discharged because of her age in violation California law.