Some employers that rely on staffing arrangements, franchise relationships, or independent contractors may see meaningful shifts in federal labor policy because of a pair of federal agency rulemaking announcements released in February 2026.
Continue Reading Labor Policy Pendulum Swings Again: New Federal Rules Reshape Joint-Employer and Independent Contractor Standards
Predictive scheduling laws, also known as “Fair Workweek” laws, are gaining traction across the United States to protect hourly workers from erratic and last-minute shift changes. These laws typically require employers to provide employee work schedules at least two weeks in advance and offer predictability pay when changes are made without sufficient notice. The goal
The U.S. Supreme Court’s 2022 ruling in Viking River Cruises v. Moriana gave California employers a brief reprieve from the onslaught of nonarbitrable Private Attorneys General Act claims.
Before then, PAGA’s structure was unique — allowing an aggrieved employee to bring a nonarbitrable suit on behalf of the state to recover penalties for Labor Code
On Sept. 5, 2022, California Governor Gavin Newsom signed into law AB 257, the controversial Fast Food Accountability and Standards Recovery Act, also known as the “FAST Act” (the Act). Its passing was swiftly met with a voter referendum filed Sept. 7, 2022, to potentially block the new law. If the proponents of the referendum
On Dec. 15, 2021, the United States Supreme Court granted certiorari in Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana, and likely will decide by summer 2022 whether the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) preempts California public policy and requires enforcement of arbitration agreements that purport to waive an employee’s ability to pursue representative actions under the
On Feb. 25, 2021, the California Supreme Court issued its much-anticipated decision in Donohue v. AMN Services, LLC. The opinion answers two important questions: (1) whether “employers can[] engage in the practice of rounding time punches – that is, adjusting the hours that an employee has actually worked to the nearest preset time increment
With the pandemic continuing to impact every-day operations of most businesses, opportunities to take advantage of the flexible spending account relief offered in the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2021 (“CAA”), passed at the end of December 2020, may not be top of mind for most employers. However, the numerous considerable benefits created by the CAA
On Jan. 14, 2021, the California Supreme Court issued its long-awaited ruling on whether the “ABC test” articulated in its 2018 Dynamex Operations West Inc. v. Superior Court of Los Angeles decision applies retroactively. At stake is the status of thousands of workers classified as independent contractors prior to Dynamex. Would these workers’ classifications
Despite being in effect since Jan. 1, 2020, the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) continues to generate confusion for employers of California residents. Much attention has been given to the CCPA’s effect on a business’ obligations in collecting, using, and sharing California customers’ data. However, given the CCPA’s broad “consumer” definition includes “employees,” it also imposes duties on any in-scope business that manages California employees’ data. Notably, under the CCPA, “employees” include job applicants. The CCPA thus applies to both California customers and employees/job applicants of any “business,” which is defined as a for-profit organization doing business in California that controls how personal information is processed and: (i) has gross annual revenue exceeding $25 million; (ii) buys, receives, sells, or shares personal information of 50,000 or more California consumers, households, or devices; or (iii) derives 50% or more of its annual revenue from selling personal information of California residents. Civ. Code § 1798.140(c)(1). Importantly, for the CCPA to apply, businesses do not have to be physically in California. Thus, for example, a business that does not have any facilities in California, but employs remote workers in California, could be subject to the CCPA if it meets the CCPA’s “business” definition.
Continue Reading Employers: Stop, Drop, and Ensure CCPA Compliance as to Employees Residing in California
On Sept. 18, California Gov. Gavin Newsom signed Assembly Bill 5 (AB5) into law. AB5, effective Jan. 1, 2020, seeks to codify and clarify a California Supreme Court case (Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. Superior Court of Los Angeles), which dramatically changed the standard for determining whether workers in California should be classified