Under the Ordinance, employers must:

·      State that qualified applicants with arrest or conviction records will be considered for employment.

·      Specify any laws that restrict or prohibit hiring individuals with certain criminal histories.

·      Include a list of all material job duties for positions where a criminal background may directly and negatively impact employment, potentially leading to the withdrawal of a conditional job offer.

Further, like the statewide Fair Chance Act, the LA Ordinance prohibits employers from asking about criminal convictions until after a conditional job offer has been made. If an employer plans to conduct a background check at this stage, it must first provide detailed written notice.

The Ordinance prohibits employers from considering: (1) arrests not followed by conviction; (2) referrals or participation in a diversion or deferral of judgment program; (3) convictions that are sealed, dismissed, or expunged; (4) juvenile records; (5) non-felony convictions for possession of marijuana that are more than two years old; (6) any conviction more than seven years old; (7) infractions, with the exception of some driving infractions; and (8) convictions arising out of conduct that has been decriminalized since the conviction.

An individualized assessment must be performed before rescinding a conditional job offer based on a criminal record. An employer intending to withdraw a conditional offer or take other adverse employment action must follow prescribed steps, and rejected candidates have the ability to challenge the decision.

The Ordinance also contains certain notice and records retention requirements. It requires employers post a notice of the Ordinance at every worksite in unincorporated Los Angeles County and on Company webpages frequently visited by their employees or applicants.

Employers with operations in unincorporated Los Angeles County should evaluate job listing and hiring practices to conform with the new Ordinance.

Last week, Governor Newsom, working with state lawmakers and labor and pro-business groups, hammered out a deal to reform key aspects of PAGA. The reforms, if passed by the California Legislature and signed by the Governor by June 27th, will result in removal of a pending PAGA reform measure from the November ballot.

The reforms are calculated to:

·      Encourage prompt compliance with wage-hour laws by capping penalties for employers who act quickly to fix policies and practices, and make workers whole, after receiving a PAGA notice.

·      Create new, higher penalties for employers who act maliciously, fraudulently, or oppressively in violating labor laws.

·      Increase percentage of penalties that go to employees from 25% to 35%.

·      Expand the number of Labor Code sections that can be cured to reduce the need for litigation.

·      Help to reduce the impact on small employers by providing a more robust right-to-cure process.

·      Allow courts to provide injunctive relief to compel businesses to implement changes in the workplace to remedy labor law violations.

·      Require employee(s) who sue to personally experience the alleged violations brought in a claim.

We will continue to monitor these developments. Regardless of reforms, it is clear PAGA is not going anywhere.

The very best way to avoid these potentially disastrous lawsuits is to ensure full compliance with California’s wage-hour laws. We encourage employers to audit their timekeeping, overtime, meal and rest break and reimbursement practices, as these are the most common PAGA violations.

Additionally, if the reforms become law, on receiving notice of a PAGA claim, in the form of a letter to the Labor Workforce Development Agency (LWDA), employers should immediately act to “cure” violations to reduce penalties. We can assist with each of these efforts. Please contact us for help.

Codified at Labor Code Sec. 6401.9, the new law applies to most California employers, with exceptions for employers already covered by the Workplace Violence Prevention in Healthcare standard, employees teleworking from somewhere they choose that is not under the control of the employer, or workplaces inaccessible to the public and have less than 10 employees working at any given time.

The new law mandates that employers establish, implement, and maintain a WVPP with specific required elements and procedures. The WVPP must be in writing and available to employees and authorized employee representatives at all times. The WVPP may appear as a stand-alone section in the employer’s existing Injury and Illness Prevention Program (IIPP) or as a separate document.

In light of the extensive requirements under Section 6401.9, California employers should begin to take active steps to ensure compliance by July 1, 2024. These include:

·      Identify who will implement and administer the WVPP;

·      Assess potential workplace violence hazards;

·      Draft the WVPP; and

·      Prepare and conduct required training for supervisors and employees.

We are here to guide employers through these new requirements.

Under the accrual method, the amended law now requires employers who use this method to ensure an employee will accrue no less than five days (or 40 hours) of accrued sick leave by the 200th calendar day of employment or each calendar year, or in each 12-month period. Additionally, for employers using the accrual method, the new law increases the accrual and carryover cap to 10 days or 80 hours. There is no carryover required for employers using the lump sum method.

Employers are not required to pay out an employee for accrued but unused paid sick days at the end of employment, although employers must reinstate unused paid sick days if an employee is rehired within one year. They must also provide employees with written notice that lists the amount of paid sick leave available either on the wage statement or in a separate writing provided on the pay date.

Employers should revise their handbooks and policies to reflect this important change in the law. We can help with this.

Certain specific industry employers, such as healthcare facilities and fast-food workers, also have unique minimum wage increases that become effective later in the year. Healthcare facility workers, for example, will enjoy an increased minimum wage beginning June 1, 2024, ranging from $18 to $23 per hour, depending on the size and location of the facility. The minimum wage for fast food workers will also increase to $20 per hour beginning April 1, 2024.

Employers with questions or concerns about the new minimum wage, particularly in the context of ensuring exempt employees meet the applicable salary threshold, should contact us.

Specifically, Section 16600.5 will bar “an employer or former employer from attempting to enforce a contract that is void regardless of whether the contract was signed and the employment was maintained outside of California.”

California’s prohibition against non-competes is not new. We have long counseled clients, as an alternative to unenforceable non-compete agreements, as well as agreements barring the solicitation of customers, clients or employees, to prohibit the use of confidential or proprietary information to compete or solicit customers or employees. While this remains a legally viable option, it is crucial (1) that confidentially agreements be carefully drafted to protect confidential information and limit its use; and (2) to take steps to ensure such information is demonstrably treated as confidential within the organization.

Employers may continue to use alternative methods to provide paid sick leave: accrual and front-loading. Under SB 616, employers may continue the accrual method, to provide one hour of paid sick leave for every thirty hours worked, so long as an employee has accrued forty hours or five days by the end of the 200th calendar day of employment. Alternatively, employers may continue to frontload the entire paid sick leave amount.

SB 616 also increases the accrual cap for paid sick leave accrual at eighty hours or ten days. Currently, employers may limit paid sick leave accrual to forty-eight hours or six days. This amendment brings the entire state more in line with several municipalities which had instituted in piecemeal fashion more generous paid sick leave requirements since the Healthy Workplaces, Healthy Families Act (HWHFA) was first enacted in 2014.

This is a significant development for employers throughout California. With slightly less than three (3) months to prepare, employers should take this opportunity to revise policies and handbooks and conduct necessary training. We are here to assist with this process, including handbook updates.

Unfortunately, unless strict requirements are met, unpaid internships can violate state and federal laws, exposing unwary employers to substantial liability risks, including for unpaid wages, unpaid overtime, rest and meal breaks, unreimbursed expenses and waiting time penalties.

The following are the federal and state standards for when an employer can legitimately use unpaid interns. As with all employment laws, California employers must comply with both federal and state-specific law.

The federal law derives from the Department of Labor (DOL)’s unpaid internship rules, which require the employer to ensure that:

1.     The intern knows that the position is unpaid.

2.     The training is similar to training received at an educational institution.

3.     The internship is tied and integrated to the student’s educational program or degree.

4.     The intern only works during periods that do not conflict with academic commitments or the academic calendar.

5.     The internship only lasts for a period of time in which it imparts beneficial learning upon the intern.

6.     The intern’s work does not replace existing employees’ work while providing significant educational benefits.

7.     The intern understands that this internship does not provide entitlement to a job.

In addition to the DOL test, California courts tend to apply the following criteria in evaluating when an unpaid internship is lawful:

1.     Whether the internship is part of an educational curriculum which requires the participation of a school or a similar institution.

2.     Interns cannot receive employee benefits, such as medical insurance and workers’ compensation.

3.     The training must be general enough so that the intern can work for any similar business, rather than just for a specific company.

4.     The screening process for the internship cannot be the same process used for regular employees.

5.     Advertisements for the internship must clearly indicate that the internship position is educational and not for paid work.

Employers considering unpaid interns are encouraged to contact us to ensure their program complies with the law and will not expose them to liability.

·      City of Los Angeles, increasing to $16.78 (from $16.04)

·      County of Los Angeles, increasing to $16.90 (from $15.96)

·      Malibu & Santa Monica, increasing to $16.90 (from $15.96)

·      Pasadena, increasing to $16.93 (from $16.11)

·      West Hollywood, increasing to $19.08 (from $17/$17.50, depending on size)

·      San Francisco, increasing to $18.07 (from $16.99)

This list is not exhaustive. Additionally, the minimum wage for hotel workers will increase in Santa Monica ($19.73). Employers with remote workers should ensure that anyone performing remote work in an affected municipality must adhere to the municipality’s minimum wage.

Some local ordinances contain specific notice requirements. This includes posters in a conspicuous place at the worksite and may be required in multiple languages. Notices may be emailed to remote workers (we recommend a method to confirm receipt). Employers with questions about the applicable minimum wage or the notice requirements should contact us.