Seyfarth Synopsis: Several bills of concern to California employers failed to receive the house of origin blessing and passage by the June 1 deadline, including this year’s attempts at PAGA reform, criminal history inquiries, and medical marijuana accommodations, while a boatload of others, most notably sexual harassment-related bills, sail on. The measures being passed to their opposite house for consideration are described below. 

Friday, June 1, marked the deadline for the state Senate and Assembly to pass bills introduced in their respective houses to the other house. Several employment-related bills (see links at the end of this post) failed to make it out of the house of origin. Many others, detailed below, continue their onward progress toward possible enactment into law. Most notable in number and publicity are the many pending sexual harassment bills. Here’s what is still alive, that we are watching:

Sexual Harassment

AB 1867 would require employers with 50 or more employees to retain records of all internal employee sexual harassment complaints for ten years, and would allow the Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH) to seek an order compelling non-compliant employers to do so. The bill, which would add Section 12950.5 to the Government Code, is scheduled for hearing in the Senate Labor and Industrial Relations Committee on June 13.

SB 1300 would amend the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) to require a plaintiff who alleges the employer failed to take all reasonable steps necessary to prevent discrimination and harassment to show: (1) the employer knew the conduct was unwelcome, (2) the conduct would meet the legal standard for harassment or discrimination if it increased in severity or became pervasive, and (3) the employer failed to take all reasonable steps to prevent the same or similar conduct from recurring.

This bill would also (a) prohibit an employer from requiring a release of claims or rights under FEHA, or a nondisclosure agreement or other agreement not to disclose unlawful acts in the workplace, in exchange for a raise or a bonus or as a condition of employment or continued employment, (b) require employers, with five or more employees, to provide two hours of sexual harassment prevention training, including bystander intervention training, within six months of hire and every two years thereafter to all California employees—not just supervisors, and (c) prohibit a prevailing defendant from being awarded fees and costs unless the court finds the action was frivolous, unreasonable, or totally without foundation when brought or that the plaintiff continued to litigate after it clearly became so.

SB 1343, which closely resembles SB 1300, would require employers with five or more employees—including temporary or seasonal employees—to provide at least two hours of sexual harassment training to all employees by 2020 and then once every two years thereafter. SB 1343 would also require the DFEH to develop (or obtain) and publish on its website a two-hour interactive online training course on prevention of sexual harassment in the workplace. The bill would also require the DFEH to make the training course, as well as posters, and fact sheets, available in multiple languages (i.e., English, Spanish, Simplified Chinese, Tagalog, Vietnamese, Korean and any other language spoken by “a substantial number of non-English speaking people”).

AB 3080 would prohibit (1) a person from, as a condition of employment or as a condition of entering into a contractual agreement, prohibiting a job applicant, an employee, or independent contractor from disclosing to any person instances of sexual harassment suffered, witnessed, or discovered in the work place; (2) mandatory arbitration of sexual harassment claims; and (3) retaliation against an applicant or an employee who refuses to sign an arbitration agreement. Governor Brown vetoed AB 465 in 2015, which would have prohibited the use of mandatory arbitration agreements as a condition of employment. In his veto message, Governor Brown said he was “not prepared to take the far-reaching step proposed by this bill” and that this sort of blanket ban on mandatory arbitration “has been consistently struck down in other states as violating the Federal Arbitration Act” (FAA). Supporters of AB 3080 have attempted to “preemptively” address such arguments: Floor Analyses cite the ACLU as citing the California Supreme Court’s 2000 Armendariz decision, as well as Civil Code sections 1668 and 3513, to argue that the FAA does not exempt arbitration clauses from general principles that apply to all contracts, and that contracts attempting to exempt people from fraud or illegal activity are unenforceable and against public policy.

AB 3081 would: (1) extend Labor Code prohibitions on discrimination against employees who are victims of domestic violence, sexual assault, or stalking to include employees who are victims of sexual harassment, as well as employees who take time off to assist a family member who is a victim of domestic violence, sexual assault, sexual harassment or stalking; (2) create a rebuttable presumption of unlawful retaliation against an employee if any adverse job action occurs within 90 days of reporting sexual harassment, participating in an investigation, or similar acts; (3) increase the time an employee has to file a complaint with the DLSE for violation of Labor Code section 230 (provides protected time off for jury duty and victims) from one year to three years; (4) require an employer, at the time of hiring and regularly on an annual basis thereafter, to provide to each employee a written notice that includes prescribed information about sexual harassment; and (5) require an employer with 25 or more employees to provide sexual harassment prevention training to all nonsupervisory employees at the time of hire and once every two years thereafter. The bill would also require the Labor Commissioner to create a means for employees to report sexual harassment or assault that occurs in the workplace.

AB 3082 would require the state Department of Social Services (DSS) to develop a policy addressing sexual harassment of in-home supportive services (IHSS) providers and to provide the Legislature with a summary by September 30, 2019. AB 2872 would require the DSS to adopt a peer-to-peer training course for IHSS providers and to ensure that every authorized provider has received at least two hours of peer-to-peer training by December 31, 2019. Beginning January 1, 2020, the bill would require all new or returning IHSS providers to receive at least two hours of peer-to-peer training within their first year of employment.

SB 1038 would make an employee who intentionally retaliates against a person who has filed a complaint, testified, assisted in any proceeding, or opposed any prohibited practice, under FEHA, jointly and severally liable, regardless of whether the employer knew or should have known of that employee’s retaliatory conduct. Previous versions of this bill would have extended personal liability for retaliation, similarly to the liability that already exists for harassment.

AB 2770 would include as “privileged” communications for: (1) complaints of sexual harassment made without malice by an employee to an employer based upon credible evidence; (2) communications between the employer and “interested persons” made without malice regarding the complaint; and (3) non-malicious statements made to prospective employers as to whether a decision to not rehire would be based on a determination that the former employee had engaged in sexual harassment. The bill is scheduled for hearing in the Senate Committee on Judiciary on June 12.

AB 1870 would extend the time an employee has to file an administrative charge with the DFEH alleging an unlawful practice under the FEHA, including, but not limited to, allegations of a sexual harassment, from one year to three years from the alleged incident.

SB 820, the “Stand Together Against Non-Disclosure” (STAND) Act, would make void as a matter of law and public policy provisions in settlement agreements, entered into on or after January 1, 2019, that prevent the disclosure of factual information related to cases involving sexual assault, sexual harassment, sex discrimination, and failure to prevent sex-based harassment and discrimination. The bill would, however, allow such a confidentiality provision to be included upon the request of the claimant unless the opposing party is a government agency or public official; and would allow a provision requiring the monetary settlement payment be kept confidential. Senator Leyva thanked her colleagues when this bill passed the Senate on May 21: “SB 820 shreds the curtain of secrecy that has forced victims to remain silent and empowers them to speak their truth so that we can hopefully protect other victims moving forward.” SB 820 would build on AB 1682, signed into law in 2016, which prohibits confidentiality provisions in settlement agreements in cases involving child sexual abuse or sexual assault against an elderly or dependent adult.

AB 3109 would make void and unenforceable a provision in a contract or settlement agreement, entered into on or after January 1, 2019 that: either (1) waives a party’s right to testify regarding an alleged criminal conduct or sexual harassment by the other party to the contract or agreement in an administrative, legislative, or judicial proceeding; or (2) substantially restrains a party’s right to seek employment or reemployment in any lawful occupation or industry, unless the other party to the contract or agreement is the current or prior employer (except for public employers and a private employer that “so dominates the labor market” so as to effectively restrict the employee from being able to secure employment). The bill is scheduled to be heard in the Senate Committee on Judiciary on June 17.

SB 224 would extend liability for claims of sexual harassment where a professional relationship exists between a complainant and an elected official, lobbyist, director, or producer. This bill (a two year bill introduced in February 2017) has been held at the Assembly desk since January 23, 2018. AB 2338 would require talent agencies to provide to employees and artists, and the Labor Commissioner to provide minors and their parents (prior to issuing the minor a work permit), training and materials on sexual harassment prevention, retaliation, nutrition, reporting resources, and eating disorders. This bill would authorize the Labor Commissioner to charge up to a $25 fee to train each minor, and to impose a $100 fine each time a talent agency fails to provide training, education, or fails to retain specified records. The bill would require a talent agency to request and retain a copy of the minor’s work permit prior to representing a minor.

AB 2079—the “Janitor Survivor Empowerment Act”—would: (1) prohibit the Division of Industrial Relations (DIR) from approving a janitorial service employer’s registration or a renewal that has not fully satisfied a final judgment for certain unlawful employment practices; (2) require the DIR to convene an advisory committee to develop requirements for qualified organizations and peer trainers that janitorial employers must use to provide sexual harassment prevention training; (3) require the DIR maintain a list of qualified organizations and qualified peer trainers and employers to use a qualified organization from the list; and (4) require employers, upon request, to provide an employee a copy of all training materials. AB 2079 builds upon AB 1978 (2016)—the Property Services Workers Protection Act, effective July 1, 2018—which established requirements to combat wage theft and sexual harassment for the janitorial industry.

AB 1761 would require hotel employers to: (1) provide employees with a free “panic button” to call for help when working alone in a guest room that the employee may use, and allow the employee to cease work, if the employee reasonably believes there is an ongoing crime, harassment, or other emergency happening in the employee’s presence; (2) post a notice on the back of each guestroom door informing guests of the panic buttons entitled, “The Law Protects Hotel Housekeepers and Other Employees from Sexual Assault and Harassment”; and (3) provide an employee subjected to an act of violence, sexual harassment or assault, upon request, with time off to seek assistance from law enforcement, legal or medical assistance, and/or reasonable accommodation. The bill would prohibit employers from taking action against any employee who exercises the protections afforded by this bill, and impose a $100 per day penalty, up to $1,000, for a violation of these proposed provisions.

Pay Equity

SB 1284, as presently drafted, is a less onerous version of last year’s effort to mandate annual reporting of pay data a la EEO-1. The bill would require, on or before September 30, 2019, and each year thereafter, that private employers with 100 or more employees submit a pay data report to the DIR. If enacted, the law would require employers to include in the report the following for each establishment, and a consolidated report for all establishments:

  1. The number of employees by race, ethnicity, and sex in the following categories: all levels of officials and managers, professionals, technicians, sales workers, administrative support workers, craft workers, operatives, laborers and helpers, and service workers; and
  2. The number of employees by race, ethnicity and sex whose earnings fall within each of the pay bands used by the US Bureau of Labor Statistics Occupation Employment Statistics Survey, determined by each employee’s total earnings for a 12-month look-back period, including total hours worked by each employee for part-time/partial-year employment.

Employers that are required to submit the EEO-1 Report could instead submit that report to the DIR. The DIR would maintain the reports for 10 years and make the report available to the DFEH upon request. Non-compliant employers would be subject to a $500 civil penalty for the initial violation and $5,000 for each subsequent violation as well as citation by the Labor Commissioner. The bill would prohibit the DIR and DFEH from publicizing any individually identifiable information obtained through this process but authorize the DIR or the DFEH to develop and publicize aggregate reports based on the information received that are reasonably calculated to prevent association of any data with any business or person.

This year’s Fair Pay Act bill, AB 2282, attempts to clarify some ambiguities in Labor Code sections 432.3 and 1197.5 created by prior pay equity legislation, AB 1676 (2016) and AB 168 (2017). AB 2282 would clarify that “pay scale” means a “salary or hourly wage range,” that “reasonable request” by an employee for a position’s pay scale means “a request made after an applicant has completed an initial interview with the employer,” and that “applicant” or “applicant for employment” means an individual who is seeking employment with the employer and is currently not employed with that employer in any capacity or position. The bill provides that nothing in section 432.3 prohibits an employer from asking an applicant about his/her salary expectation, and that nothing in section 1197.5 should be interpreted to prohibit an employer from making a compensation decision based on a current employee’s existing salary as long as any wage differential resulting from that compensation decision is justified by one or more of the factors specified in the statute. AB 2282 is scheduled for hearing in the Senate Committee on Labor and Industrial Relations on June 13.

Pay Statements: SB 1252 would amend Labor Code section 226 to grant employees the right “to receive” a copy of (not just inspect) their pay statements. This bill is scheduled for hearing on June 20 in the Assembly Committee on Labor and Employment.

Port Drayage Carriers: SB 1402 would require the DLSE to create and post a list on its website of “bad actor” port drayage motor carriers, i.e., companies with any unsatisfied judgments or assessments, or any “order, decision, or award” finding illegal conduct as to various wage/hour issues, including independent contractor misclassification and derivative claims. This bill would extend joint and severable liability to those companies’ customers for future wage violations of the same nature by those drayage motor carriers. This bill is part of a very broad and multi-pronged attack on port drayage motor carriers serving the LA and Long Beach ports, mainly regarding alleged independent contractor misclassification of drivers.

Lactation Accommodations: AB 1976 would ensure employers’ already-required reasonable efforts to provide a room or location for lactation consists of providing something other than a toilet stall or bathroom (by deleting “toilet stall” and inserting “bathroom” in the statute). This bill is scheduled for hearing in the Senate Committee on Labor and Industrial Relations on June 13. SB 937 would more substantively change existing lactation accommodation requirements, by requiring a lactation room to be safe, clean, and free of toxic or hazardous materials, contain a surface to place a breast pump and personal items, contain a place to sit, and have access to electricity. The bill would exempt employers with fewer than 50 employees that can show that the requirement would impose an undue hardship by causing significant expense or operational difficulty when considered in relation to the employer’s size, financial resources, or structure.  SB 937 would allow employers to designate a temporary lactation location, instead of providing a dedicated room, due to operational, financial, or space limitations. SB 937 would require employers to develop and implement a new lactation accommodation policy describing an employee’s right to a lactation accommodation, how to request an accommodation, the employer’s obligation to respond to the request, and the employee’s right to file a complaint with the Labor Commissioner. The bill would also require employers to maintain accommodation request records for three years and to allow the Labor Commissioner access to the records. The bill would require the DLSE to create and make available a model lactation policy and model lactation accommodation request form on the DLSE website, as well as lactation accommodation best practices. The bill would deem a denial of reasonable break time or adequate lactation space a failure to provide a rest period in accordance with Labor Code section 226.7.

Paid Family Leave: 2017 legislation effective January 1, 2018, removed the seven-day waiting period before an eligible employee may receive family temporary disability benefits (under the paid family leave program, which provides wage replacement benefits to workers who take time off work to care for a seriously ill family member or to bond with a minor child within one year of birth or placement). AB 2587 would remove the requirement that up to one week of vacation leave be applied to the waiting period, consistent with the removal of the seven-day waiting period for these benefits.  This bill is scheduled for hearing in the Senate Committee on Labor and Industrial Relations on June 13.

Criminal History: SB 1412, the sole criminal history bill of four still alive, would allow employers to inquire into a job applicant’s particular conviction, regardless of whether that conviction has been judicially dismissed or sealed, under these specified conditions: (1) the employer is required by federal law, federal regulation, or state law to obtain information about the particular conviction, (2) the job applicant would carry or use a firearm as part of the employment, (3) the job applicant with that particular conviction would be ineligible to hold the position sought, or (4) the employer is prohibited from hiring an applicant who has that particular conviction.

Mediation Confidentiality: SB 954 would require that, except in the case of a class action, before engaging in a mediation or mediation consultation, an attorney representing a client participating in a mediation or a mediation consultation must provide the client with a written disclosure containing the mediation confidentiality restrictions provided in the Evidence Code. The bill would require the attorney to obtain a written acknowledgment signed by the client stating that the client has read and understands the confidentiality restrictions. However, an agreement prepared during a mediation would remain valid even if an attorney fails to comply with the disclosure requirement. The bill would also add to the mediation privilege of Evidence Code section 1122 any communication, document, or writing that is to be used in an attorney disciplinary proceeding to determine whether an attorney has complied with the above requirements, and does not disclose anything said or done or any admission made in the course of the mediation.

Immigration Status: AB 2732 would make it illegal—and subject to a $10,000 penalty—for an employer to knowingly destroy or withhold any real or purported passport, other immigration document, or government identification, of another person, in the course of committing trafficking, peonage, slavery, involuntary servitude, a coercive labor practice, or to avoid any obligation imposed on the employer by the Labor Code. This bill would require an employer to post a workplace notice stating the rights of an employee to maintain custody of the employee’s own immigration documents, that the withholding of immigration documents by an employer is a crime, and “If your employer or anyone is controlling your movement, documents, or wages, or using direct or implied threats against you or your family, or both, you have the right to call local or federal authorities, or the National Human Trafficking Hotline at 888-373-7888.”. Further, the bill would require an employer to provide employees with the “Worker’s Bill of Rights,” to be developed by the DIR by July 1, 2019, which would inform employees of the same rights.  Employers would be required to have employees sign the “Worker’s Bill of Rights” and maintain the records for at least three years.

SB 785, which the Governor signed and went into effect immediately May 17, 2018 (to sunset on January 1, 2020), prohibits the disclosure of an individual’s immigration status in open court in a civil or criminal action unless the party wishing to disclose the information requests a confidential in camera hearing and the judge deems the evidence relevant and admissible.

Bills that failed… for now:

The following bills did not survive the house of origin deadline or were struck down prior to the deadline. See our prior legislative update for summaries of these bills.

AB 2016 (PAGA); AB 2482 (Flexible Work Schedules); AB 2946 (DLSE Complaints extension); AB 2366 (Victims of Sexual Harassment); AB 1938 (Familial Status Inquiries); AB 2223 and AB 2613 (Wage Statements); AB 2069 (medical marijuana reasonable accommodation); AB 2841 (paid sick leave increase); AB 2680, SB 1298, AB 2647 (criminal history inquiries).

Stay tuned for our next Legislative update coming around the August 31st deadline for bills to pass both houses and make their way to the Governor’s office.

Seyfarth Synopsis:  June 7, 2018, when the city’s new Paid Sick Leave rules take effect, marks the latest chapter in the City by the Bay’s long history of imposing local employment standards that exceed state requirements. Here’s what you need to know before this latest San Francisco peculiarity begins.

On May 7, 2018, after considering public input on proposed rules to the City’s Paid Sick Leave Ordinance (PSLO), the San Francisco Office of Labor Standards Enforcement (OLSE) published new rules interpreting the PSLO, which is the granddaddy of municipal paid sick leave (PSL) mandates. The OLSE enacted its original interpretative PSL rules in May 2007. More recently, on January 1, 2017, the OLSE amended the PSLO. Now, nearly 18 months later, updated rules will take effect on June 7, 2018. Highlights of some key aspects follow.

Joint Employers

The PSLO broadly defines “Employer” as “any person…who directly or indirectly…employs or exercises control over the wages, hours, or working conditions of an employee.”

The new rules state that if an employee is jointly employed, and at least one employer is covered by the PSLO, each employer must comply with the PSLO. The rules follow California law to determine if an employee is jointly employed. The OLSE notes, by way of example, that joint employment can occur when an employer uses a temporary staffing agency, leasing agency, or professional employer organization. The new rules further state that a “controlled group of corporations” (as defined by the IRS Code), is considered to be a single employer under the PSLO. Employees of unincorporated businesses also are counted as working for one employer if the business satisfies the IRS’s “controlled group of corporations” definition.

Documentation

Under the PSLO, an employer may only take reasonable measures to verify or document an employee’s use of PSL. As stated in the OLSE’s original PSL rules, employers generally can require employees to provide reasonable documentation justifying their use of PSL for absences of more than three consecutive full or partial workdays. The new rules further explain that employer policies requiring a doctor’s note or other documentation when employees use PSL (a) to attend a medical appointment, or (b) in situations of a pattern or clear instance of abuse will be presumptively reasonable even if the use of PSL was for three consecutive workdays or less.

Rate of Pay

The new rules also provide guidance on calculating employees’ rate of pay for used sick leave and generally track the California statewide standards. Like the CA law,  San Francisco’s new PSL rules require different rate of pay calculations for exempt and non-exempt employees. Although the PSLO does not define “regular rate of pay” or “exempt employee,” the new rules defer to the California Division of Labor Standards Enforcement for calculating an employee’s regular rate of pay, and state that an employee’s exempt or non-exempt status is based on whether the employee is exempt from overtime pay under the FLSA and California law. If an individual is exempt, and no other forms of paid leave are provided, the employee must be paid his or her salary without any deduction for sick time taken. However, the time taken can be applied against the employee’s sick leave balance.

Rehired Employees and Breaks in Service

Under the PSLO, employees are entitled to use accrued PSL beginning on the 90th day of employment. For rehired employees, if an employee separates from the employer and is rehired by the same employer within one year, all previously accrued, unused PSL must be reinstated.

In instances where an employee separates from an employer before the 90th day of employment and is rehired within one year, the new rules clarify that the original period of employment is counted toward satisfying the 90-day usage waiting period. For example, if an employee separates from an employer after working for 45 days, and then one month later is rehired, the employee must work another 45 days before the employer needs to permit the employee to use his or her accrued PSL.

Unionized Workforces

The new rules make clear that many PSL practices or policies that have been deemed reasonable in a bona fide collective bargaining agreement (“CBA”) remain so, even if the CBA does not explicitly waive or reference the corresponding PSLO section. This can include practices or policies about notification, verification, increments of time in which paid sick leave must be taken, and sick leave pay rate.

The Upshot

In its introduction to the new rules, the OLSE stated that it was guided by the need to provide clear direction to employers and employees about the PSLO. While these new rules clarify certain gray areas under the PSLO, it remains to be seen whether they will result in further clarification or modifications to the OLSE’s interpretation of the Ordinance.

To stay up-to-date on San Francisco, California, and general Paid Sick Leave developments, click here to sign up for Seyfarth’s Paid Sick Leave mailing list.

Seyfarth Synopsis: When must an employer provide leave time in addition to FMLA/CFRA-type leave as a reasonable accommodation? The answer to that question, as with many other leave-related questions, may depend on your location on the map.

Remember that early TV sitcom “Leave It To Beaver,” starring Jerry Mathers as the Beaver? “The Beave” constantly got into trouble and vented his righteous indignation at seemingly arbitrary parental authority. California employers might relate when they try to understand when to grant additional leave to employees failing to return from various protected leaves. Employers can find themselves exasperated by sometimes arbitrary-seeming rules for reasonable accommodation.

“Swell” in the Seventh Circuit

Outside of California, courts have imposed limits on leaves that extend beyond the specific leaves mandated by statute. Take the Seventh Circuit decision in Severson v. Heartland, which held that an employer granting a reasonable accommodation under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) need not grant leave of more than a few weeks beyond an FMLA leave. Part of the rationale for this decision was that requiring employers to provide significant leave beyond an FMLA leave would convert the ADA to a medical leave entitlement statute (see our detailed blog on the decision here).  The U.S. Supreme Court has declined to review Severson.

Severson reflects an interpretation of the ADA that would limit the leave employees would be entitled to in ADA-only jurisdictions.

“Gee Whiz” in California

Within California, courts have approached the issue differently. What should an employer do when an employee has used all mandated leave time? In California, the employer may be required to grant substantially more leave, as a matter of reasonable accommodation.

In Sanchez v. Swissport, Inc. (2013), the appellate court held that where an employee had exhausted her allotted leave under the California Family Rights Act (CFRA) and Pregnancy Disability Leave Law (PDL), the employer had to continue an employee’s leave as a reasonable accommodation under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA).

Likewise, in Gardner v. Federal Express Corp. (2015), where a driver on leave for a work injury had exhausted his 90-day leave, a federal district court denied summary judgment to the employer on a FEHA claim where a question of fact existed as to whether additional leave would have been a reasonable accommodation.

In deciding if continued leave would be a reasonable accommodation, courts look at whether the leave appears finite, and whether the employee could return to perform essential job functions at the end of the requested leave. Unfortunately, this analysis can pose factual problems for even the most cautious employer, as it can be obscure when (or if) an employee is likely to return.

Be-very Cautious Going Forward

Luckily, there are some limits to extended leave requirements, even in California.

In one leading case, Hanson v. Lucky Stores, Inc. (1999), the Court of Appeal made clear that after an employee’s protected leave entitlement has expired, “a finite leave can be a reasonable accommodation under FEHA, provided it is likely that at the end of the leave, the employee would be able to perform his or her duties.” The Court of Appeal further noted that a “reasonable accommodation does not require an employer to wait indefinitely for an employee’s medical condition to be corrected.”

So there is a limit to how much leave an employer must provide beyond CFRA, FMLA, or PDL-related leaves. Unfortunately, exactly how long the employee can remain off work depends on the specific circumstances. Case law indicates that courts will look to the particular aspects of the business, difficulties in maintaining the employee’s position, and the general outlook of the employee’s ability to return to the position.

In one recent decision, Markowitz v. UPS (2018), the Ninth Circuit upheld summary judgment for an employer, holding that accommodating an employee for twelve months of leave after she had exhausted FMLA leave was reasonable, under the specific circumstances of that particular case.

Workplace Solution: Even though there are limits, the amount of time a California employer must grant FEHA leave in excess of other statutory entitlements is in the gray area of “reasonable accommodation.” Our suggestion is that employers tread cautiously, proceed step by step, evaluate developments as they occur, and consult with counsel at each fork in the road.

Edited by Coby Turner

Seyfarth Synopsis: Given recent headlines, a storm could be brewing over the boundaries of the attorney-client privilege in some parts of the country. California employers can avoid this vortex, at least when dealing with their current and former employees. Both can be part of the “corporate client” for purposes of attorney-client privilege, so long as communications with counsel meet a few requirements.

To provide sound legal advice, in-house counsel often communicate with current and even former employees from all levels of their corporations. Particularly with the storm over the scope of the attorney-client privilege currently raging in Washington, it never hurts to review when employees are “corporate clients” whose communications are privileged and sheltered from disclosure. The last place an employer wants to find itself is in the rain, without an umbrella, when the government or a bombastic plaintiff’s attorney starts poking around for in-house counsel’s communications.

Which Employees Are “Clients?”

California and federal privilege rules treat company employees similarly, but there are some differences. Federal courts, while applying federal-question jurisdiction, apply the well-known Upjohn standard. The Ninth Circuit describes this standard as protecting communications by any corporate employee, regardless of position, when

  • the communications concern matters within the scope of the employee’s corporate duties, and
  • the employee is aware that the information is being furnished to enable the attorney to provide legal advice to the corporation.

California courts apply a different set of factors. In the leading case, D. I. Chadbourne, Inc. v. Superior Court, the California Supreme Court listed eleven “basic principles” to determine when the attorney-client privilege exists in a corporate setting. Chadbourne’s principles overlap somewhat with federal law: (1) the communications must emanate from the employees’ job responsibilities and (2) the employee must understand that the communications are confidential. But Chadbourne adds some additional wrinkles, breaking privileged communications into three categories:

  1. If the employee is a defendant or may be charged with liability because of being employed, statements to in-house counsel relating to the potential dispute are privileged.
  2. In the ordinary course of business, employee communications with counsel are privileged if they “emanate” from the corporation, and the employee is the person who would ordinarily communicate the information to counsel.
  3. If the employee has witnessed an event requiring legal advice, communications with counsel are privileged when the employee is required to report the matter, and the “dominant purpose” for requiring the employee to talk with a lawyer is to provide the lawyer information from the company.

Multi-factor legal tests are not known for the clarity they provide. Chadbourne’s is no different. For instance, what happens if an employee walks into counsel’s office, undirected by a manager, to raise concerns about the job? Is that conversation privileged? The federal standard would suggest that privilege applies, so long as the conversation is confidential and the employee is seeking legal counsel about employment. But the California standard clouds up the legal skyscape. A strict reading of Chadbourne could suggest that privilege attaches only if the employer requires the employee to report conduct, a requirement arguably not met in our hypothetical.

Are Former Employees Ever “Clients?”

California courts have extended attorney-client privilege to some situations involving communication with former employees. Courts recognize the privilege where the corporate lawyer communicates with former employees when (1) matters fall in the former employees’ prior scope of employment, and (2) the lawyer needs to provide legal advice to the company. But corporate counsel again must proceed with caution.

As an initial matter, the privilege as to former employees is narrower than it is as to current employees. For instance, one federal judge interpreting California law refused to extend the privilege to counsel’s fact gathering interviews and deposition preparation with a former employee, as nothing required the former employee to communicate with counsel. The employee did not have a cooperation agreement with his former employer, and the former employee was not the only source of the information the company sought. Many employers could avoid this predicament with a joint-defense agreement with the former employee. But these agreements could come with their own risks, particularly where a potential conflict looms with the employee.

Further, even if the former employee’s communications with corporate counsel are privileged, opposing counsel could contact the employee directly. The opposing side cannot inquire into privileged communications, but there is little in practice that corporate counsel can do to ensure that the former employee does not unknowingly disclose privileged information.

So How Do Employers Avoid Privilege Storms With Their Employees?

Contrary to some high-level publicity on the subject, the attorney-client privilege is not dead. Indeed, it thrives, at least as it exists between California employers and their employees. But to ensure clear sailing, employers communicating with current and former employees should keep some tips in mind, lest they destroy the privilege in a storm of their own making:

  • Always be clear with current and former employees that you do not represent them personally, and that the communications are confidential. Often called “Upjohn Warnings,” the strongest notices to employees (1) make clear that the corporate lawyer does not represent the individual employee, (2) that anything the employee says to the lawyers will be protected by the company’s attorney-client privilege, (3) the employer retains the right to waive the privilege, and, depending on the type of situation, (4) individuals may wish to consult their own independent counsel if they have any concern about potential legal exposure. These warnings often are given in writing.
  • Document that the communication is related to providing legal advice to the company. That the conversation concerned legal issues relating to the company is a requirement for the attorney-client privilege to attach. Proper documentation could help establish the privilege in the event a court ever should question the purpose of the conversation.
  • Limit discussions with current and former employees to matters within the scope of their job duties. Again, this is a requirement for the privilege to attach, and thus, important to document, where feasible.
  • Do not discuss litigation strategy or share work product with the employees. This is a good strategy for all employees, but especially important for former employees because the opposing party in litigation can contact them directly, without going through the company’s counsel.
  • Ensure company policies include provisions reminding employees not to disclose the contents of communications with counsel. This is another opportunity for employers to impress upon employees that communications with counsel are confidential, which is key for the communications to be privileged.
  • Consider having departing employees sign cooperation agreements. Particularly for employees involved in active litigation, or where litigation is possible, having a cooperation agreement in place with former employees will help remove doubt whether they are “required” to provide information to employers, even after their employment ends.

Workplace Solutions: As one can see, navigating the stormy waters of corporate attorney-client privilege can be difficult. If you have further questions about this article, please feel free to contact the author or your favorite Seyfarth attorney.

Edited By: Michael Wahlander

On April 30, 2018, the California Supreme Court issued a long-awaited opinion in which it considered which test should be used to decide whether a worker asserting claims under a California Wage Order is an employee or an independent contractor.  The following Seyfarth One Minute Memo summarizes the case and what it means for employers.

Seyfarth Synopsis: The California Supreme Court, in Dynamex Operations v. Superior Court, held that “engage, suffer or permit to work” determines employee status for Wage Order claims, requiring a defendant disputing employee status to prove (A) the worker is free from control and direction of the hirer in connection with performing the work, both under contract and in fact; (B) the worker performs work outside the usual course of the hiring entity’s business; and (C) the worker customarily engages in an independently established trade, occupation, or business of the same nature as the work performed for the hirer.

The Trial Court Decision

Delivery drivers Charles Lee and Pedro Chevez sued Dynamex Operations West for unlawfully classifying them and 1,800 other drivers as independent contractors. To argue that they were really employees, they cited California’s Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Order No. 9. Their motion for class certification argued that, under Martinez v. Combs (2010), they were employees in that Dynamex knew that they provided services and had negotiated their rates. The trial court certified a class. Dynamex petitioned the Court of Appeal for a writ of mandate.

To view the full alert, please click on the link below:

http://www.seyfarth.com/publications/OMM050118-LE

Seyfarth Synopsis: California is rife with regulation of how employers may obtain and consider background check information for use in hiring and personnel decisions. The relatively new California ban-the-box law (effective January 1, 2018) and the older Los Angeles and San Francisco ordinances and amendments to the California Labor Code set strict rules on when and how employers can consider criminal and credit histories in employment. Many details to follow.

Before 2014, when San Francisco enacted a city-wide ban-the-box law, criminal history background checks were largely unregulated in California, except for a handful of Labor Code provisions that barred consideration of certain types of criminal records. And California employers were stripped of their ability to use credit checks for hiring and other personnel decisions in 2012, by amendments to the Labor Code that restricted the use of credit checks to very narrow circumstances. Los Angeles and the State of California have now joined San Francisco with their own ban-the-box laws, which markedly differ from San Francisco’s.

This blog highlights the laws concerning criminal and credit history background check reports in California, after briefly discussing the decades-old federal Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”). As the number of class actions alleging FCRA violations continues to skyrocket, it is critical that California employers understand the basics of all laws affecting employment screening programs and determine what changes to policies, forms, and practices will ensure compliance and reduce the risk of claims.

FCRA Basics

Generally speaking, before an employer may obtain a consumer report (aka a “background check report”)—which may include criminal or credit history, from a third-party background check company (“consumer reporting agency” or “CRA”)—the employer must make a clear and conspicuous written disclosure to the individual, in a document that consists “solely” of the disclosure, that a background check may be done. California’s fair credit reporting statute also requires a separate, stand-alone disclosure, which cannot be combined with the FCRA disclosure. The applicant or employee must provide written consent for the employer to obtain a background check report. There are other requirements for “investigative consumer reports” (those based on interviews of the individual’s friends, neighbors and associates) and employers regulated by the Department of Transportation.

Before an employer relies in whole or in part on a background check report to take an “adverse action” (e.g., rescinding a conditional job offer or discharging an employee), the employer must provide the individual a “pre-adverse action” notice, and include with it a copy of the report and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s Summary of Rights. This notice gives the individual an opportunity to discuss the report with the employer before the employer takes adverse action.

Once the employer is prepared to take the adverse action, it must then give the individual an “adverse action” notice, containing certain FCRA-mandated text.

California employers that rely on criminal and credit history information for employment purposes must also consider state and local laws that impose additional compliance obligations, regardless of whether the information is obtained from a CRA.

Employers May Order “Credit Reports” Only for Certain Positions

As noted, California employers have been hampered in their ability to order credit checks since 2012. Labor Code section 1024.5 states that employers, except for financial institutions, may order a credit check only if the individual works (or is applying to work) in certain positions:

  • a managerial position (as defined in California Wage Order 4);
  • a position in the State Department of Justice;
  • a sworn peace officer or law enforcement position;
  • a position for which the employer must, by law, consider credit history information;
  • a position that affords regular access to bank or credit card account information, Social Security numbers, and dates of birth (all three are required), so long as access to this information does not merely involve routine solicitation and processing of credit card applications in a retail establishment;
  • a position where the individual is or will be a named signatory on the bank or credit card account of the employer or authorized to transfer money or authorized to enter into financial contracts on the employer’s behalf;
  • a position that affords access to confidential or proprietary information; or
  • a position that affords regular access during the workday to the employer’s, a customer’s or a client’s cash totaling at least $10,000.

Setting aside state and federal disclosure and authorization requirements discussed above, any California employer that intends to order a credit check on a position identified above must notify the individual in writing why the employer is using a credit report (e.g., the individual is applying for or holds a position that affords access to confidential or proprietary information).

California’s State and Local Ban-the-Box Laws Restrict Use of “Criminal History”

California’s statewide ban-the-box law (Gov’t Code § 12952), as of January 1, 2018, requires employers with five or more employees (subject to few exceptions) to follow certain procedures when requesting and using criminal history information for pre-hire purposes. Specifically, regardless of the source of the criminal history information, employers must:

  • Wait until after a conditional offer of employment to inquire about criminal history, which means asking applicants directly whether they have been convicted of a crime, ordering a criminal history background check, or making any other inquiry about an applicant’s criminal history.
  • Conduct an individualized assessment of an applicant’s conviction to determine whether it has a “direct and adverse relationship with the specific duties of the job that justify denying the applicant the position.” Unlike the Los Angeles ban-the-box ordinance (discussed below), the California law does not require employers to provide the applicant with their assessment.
  • Notify the applicant of any potential adverse action based on the conviction history. The notice must identify the conviction, include a copy of any conviction history report (regardless of the source), and state the deadline for the applicant to provide additional information, such as evidence of inaccuracy, rehabilitation, or other mitigating circumstances.
  • After waiting the requisite time period, notify the applicant of any final adverse action, of any existing procedure the applicant has to challenge the decision or request reconsideration, and of the applicant’s right to file a complaint with the Department of Fair Employment and Housing.

In contrast to the FCRA pre-adverse and adverse action notices—required only if the adverse decision is based on information obtained from a background check report from a CRA—the California notices are required even if the employer doesn’t order criminal background check reports from a CRA, but learns of the criminal history from a different source (such as an applicant self-disclosure).

Substantively, a wide range of criminal records are off-limits to California employers (unless the employer qualifies for very narrow exceptions identified in the Labor Code). Records that cannot be used are:

  • arrests that did not lead to a conviction;
  • non-felony marijuana convictions that are older than two years;
  • juvenile records; and
  • diversions and deferrals.

Although complying with California law can be challenging, employers that hire in the cities of Los Angeles and San Francisco must also look to the ban-the-box ordinances in these jurisdictions, which exceed the requirements found in the FCRA and the California ban-the-box law.

The Los Angeles Fair Chance Initiative for Hiring Ordinance

The Los Angeles ordinance, effective January 22, 2017, applies to any “employer” located or doing business in the City of Los Angeles and employs 10 or more employees. An employee is any person who performs at least two hours of work on average each week in the City of Los Angeles and who is covered by California’s minimum wage law. The ordinance also applies to job placement and referral agencies and is broad enough to cover other types of work, including temporary and seasonal workers and independent contractors.

The L.A. ordinance goes beyond California-imposed requirements by imposing the following onerous steps on employers when considering criminal history (regardless of the source):

  • Perform a written assessment that “effectively links the specific aspects of the Applicant’s Criminal History with risks inherent in the duties of the Employment position sought by the Applicant.” The assessment form that contains the relevant factors can be found on the city’s website.
  • Provide the applicant a “Fair Chance Process”—giving the applicant an opportunity to provide information or documentation the employer should consider before making a final decision, including evidence that the criminal record is inaccurate, or evidence of rehabilitation or other mitigating factors. As part of this process, the employer must include with the pre-adverse action notice a copy of the written assessment and any other information supporting the employer’s proposed adverse action.
  • Wait at least five business days to take adverse action or fill the position. If the applicant provides additional information or documentation, the employer must consider the new information and perform a written reassessment, which is at the bottom of the form mentioned above. If the employer still decides to take adverse action against the applicant, the employer must notify the candidate and attach a copy of the reassessment with the adverse action notice.

Los Angeles also states that all solicitations and advertisements for Los Angeles opportunities must state that the employer will consider qualified candidates with criminal histories in a manner consistent with the law.

Moreover, employers must post, in a conspicuous workplace that applicants visit, a notice that informs candidates of the Los Angeles ordinance. Copies of the notice must be sent to each labor union or representative of workers that has a collective bargaining agreement or other agreement applicable to employees in Los Angeles. This notice can be found on the City’s website.

San Francisco’s Fair Chance Ordinance

San Francisco, as of August 13, 2014, became California’s first city to enact a ban-the-box law. Because the new California ban-the-box law provided greater protections to job applicants, the City and County of San Francisco Board of Supervisors (on April 3, 2018) amended the Fair Chance Ordinance (Article 49) to align (in some respects) with the California law. However, employers with five or more employees working in San Francisco that intend to inquire about and consider criminal history (regardless of the source) also must:

  • Provide the applicant or employee with a copy of the Office of Labor Standards Enforcement’s (“OLSE”) Fair Chance Act Notice before inquiring about criminal history or ordering a criminal history background check.
  • Post the OLSE Notice “in a conspicuous place at every workplace, job site, or other location in San Francisco under the Employer’s control frequently visited by their employees or applicants,” and “send a copy of this notice to each labor union or representative of workers with which they have a collective bargaining agreement or other agreement or understanding, that is applicable to employees in San Francisco.” The posted Notice must be in English, Spanish, Chinese, and any language spoken by at least 5% of the employees at the workplace, job site, or other location at which it is posted. The Notice currently is on the OLSE’s website.

Covered San Francisco employers are barred from considering the following types of criminal records (even though these records are not off-limits in other California cities), subject to narrow exceptions: (i) infractions; (ii) convictions that are older than seven years (measured from the date of sentencing); and (iii) any conviction that arises out of conduct that has been decriminalized since the date of the conviction, measured from the date of sentencing (which would include convictions for certain marijuana and cannabis offenses).

California Workplace Solutions

Class actions against employers for failing to follow hyper-technical requirements for background checks have come to dominate the news. Employers in California and elsewhere will want to conduct (privileged) assessments to strengthen their compliance with the myriad laws that regulate use of an individual’s criminal and credit history. Suggested next steps include:

  • Assess coverage under the California, Los Angeles, and San Francisco ban-the-box laws, and California’s law restricting use of credit reports.
  • Review job advertisements and postings both for unlawful and mandatory language regarding criminal history.
  • Review job application and related forms for unlawful inquiries regarding criminal history.
  • Train employees who conduct job interviews and make or influence hiring and personnel decisions, regarding inquiries into, and uses of, credit and criminal history, including best practices for documentation and record retention.
  • Review the hiring process to ensure compliance, including the timing of criminal history background checks, the distribution of mandatory notices, and the application of necessary waiting periods.

Seyfarth Synopsis: Workplace violence is a major concern that can take the form of intimidation, threats, and even homicide. But fret not: California employers can arm themselves with restraining orders, to prevent a modern version of the “Fight Club” at work.

Rule Number 1: If There’s a Workplace Violence Threat, DO Talk About It—In Court

Being at work during a scene reminiscent of “There Will Be Blood” is not an ideal situation. Yet incidents of workplace violence are alarmingly common. According to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, nearly two million Americans report that they have witnessed incidents of workplace violence, ranging from taunts and physical abuse to homicide. The recent Long Beach law firm shooting by an ex-employee serves as a chilling reminder of what forms such violence can take.

While there is no surefire way to stop unpredictable attacks against employees—whether by a colleague, client, or stranger—California employers can avail themselves of measures to reduce the risk of workplace threats. One such measure is a judicial procedure: a workplace violence restraining order under California Civil Procedure Code section 527.8.

Rule No. 2: Understand What a California Restraining Order Looks Like

A California court can issue a workplace violence restraining order to protect an employee from unlawful violence or even a credible threat of violence at the workplace. A credible threat of violence simply means that someone is acting in such a way or saying something that would make a reasonable person fear for the person’s own safety or that of the person’s family. Actual violence need not have occurred. Many actions short of actual violence—such as harassing phone calls, text messages, voice mails, or emails—could warrant issuing a restraining order.

Restraining orders can extend beyond just the workplace and protect the employees and their families at their homes and schools. A California court can order a person to not harass or threaten the employee, not have contact or go near the employee, and not have a gun. A temporary order usually lasts 15 to 21 days, while a “permanent” order lasts up to three years.

Rule Number 3: Employer Requests Only, Please

The court will issue a workplace violence restraining order only when it is requested by the employer on behalf of an employee who needs protection. The employer must provide reasonable proof that the employee has suffered unlawful violence (e.g. assault, battery, or stalking) or a credible threat of violence, or that unlawful violence or the threat of violence can be reasonably construed to be carried out at the workplace.

So how does an employer request and obtain protection for their employees?

Rule Number 4: Document the “Fight”

The employer must complete the requisite forms and file them with the court. Though the forms do not require it, it often is helpful to include signed declarations from the aggrieved employee and other witnesses.

If a temporary restraining order is requested, a judge will decide whether to issue the order within the next business day, and if doing so will provide a hearing date on a permanent restraining order. A temporary restraining order must be served as soon as possible on the offender. The order becomes effective as soon as it is served. Temporary restraining orders last only until the hearing date.

Rule No. 5: Keep Your Eyes on the Prize at the Hearing

At the hearing, both the employee needing the restraining order and an employer representative should attend. Employers may bring witnesses, too, to help support their case. The person sought to be restrained also has a right to attend, so the employee needing the restraining order should be ready to face that person. If necessary, the employer or the employee can contact the court or local police in advance to request that additional security or protective measures be put in place where there is a threat of harm.

During the hearing itself, the judge may ask both parties to take the stand for questioning. Upon hearing the facts, the judge will either decide to deny the requested order or decide to issue a permanent restraining order, which can last up to three years.

Restraining orders are a serious matter, as employers are essentially asking the court to curtail an individual’s freedom. But such an order is a powerful tool that an employer may find necessary to protect the safety of its employees.

Workplace Solutions: Even though it may relatively easy to demonstrate a credible threat of violence and thus obtain a protective order, know that California courts protect all individuals’ liberty, including their freedom of speech. Obtaining an order to restrain that liberty requires a detailed factual showing. If you have any questions about the process or if this is the right action for you, we highly recommend that you speak to your favorite Seyfarth attorney.

Please click on the below link for an interesting and timely article posted today on our sister blog, ADA Title III News & Insights:

Seyfarth Synopsis: Plaintiffs who pursued web accessibility actions under Title III of the ADA are now using website accessibility to test the limits of a different area of law – employment law – California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act. 

[To continue reading, click here…]

We’re pleased to announce that the 2018 version of our Cal-Peculiarities: How California Employment Law is Different, your indispensable California employment law guide, is arriving next week, to coincide with our annual update Webinar on the same subject.  This edition, like its predecessors, aims to help private employers understand what’s peculiar about California employment law.  In the 2018 Edition, we continue to highlight recent court decisions and legislative developments, and how they may impact you and your business.

The book is available in a convenient, searchable eBook format.  Click here to order your copy today!

We also invite you to join us for a Cal-Pecs Webinar on Tuesday, April 17, 2018! Seyfarth attorneys Ann Marie Zaletel, Chelsea Mesa, and Coby Turner, will discuss the growing list of legal developments—judicial as well as legislative—that should concern executives, managers, general counsel, and human resources professionals with employees in California, including laws related to:

  • Enactment of California’s “Bathroom Bill”
  • New Transgender Identity and Expression Regulations
  • Expansion of Required California Anti-Harassment Training
  • New California Ban-the-Box Law
  • New California Salary History Ban
  • California Immigration Initiatives

There is no cost to attend this program, however, registration is required. Please click here to register! The webinar will be offered at the following times:

1:00 p.m. to 2:30 p.m. Eastern
12:00 p.m. to 1:30 p.m. Central
11:00 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. Mountain
10:00 a.m. to 11:30 a.m. Pacific

On behalf of your Cal-Pecs team, thank you for your continued interest in the blog.

Seyfarth Synopsis: Can employers deny employment to people who use cannabis under a medical prescription authorized by state law? In more and more states, the answer is now “No.”

Changes in cannabis laws are creating a new haze for employers. What follows is a quick summary citing some (not all) states that now require employers to think twice before denying employment to individuals because they tested positive for the use of marijuana that they are ingesting for state-authorized medical reasons.

Potpourri of Pot Protective States

Arizona. Unless failure to do so would cause an employer to lose certain benefits under federal law, an employer may not discriminate because of a person’s status as a cannabis cardholder. While employers may discipline employees for ingesting marijuana in the workplace or for working while under the influence of marijuana, a registered qualifying patient cannot be considered to be under the influence of marijuana solely because of the presence of marijuana in the patient’s system. Ariz. Rev. Stat. §§ 36-2813, 36-2814, 23-493, 23-493.06.

Delaware. An employer cannot discriminate because of a person’s status as a medical cannabis cardholder unless failure to do so would cause the employer to lose certain federal benefits. An employer can, however, prohibit the ingestion, possession, or impairment of marijuana in the workplace. Del. Code Ann. tit. 16, §§ 4905A, 4907A.

Maine. Employers cannot test applicants for cannabis unless they submit a request to the State of Maine and that request is approved. Nor can Maine employers use a positive test for cannabis, by itself, to prove that an employee is impaired by cannabis. An employer can, however, prohibit smoking medical marijuana on its premises, can prohibit employees from using or consuming cannabis in the workplace, and can prohibit employees from working while under the influence. Rev. Stat. tit. 22, § 2423-E; 10-144-122 Me. Code R. 2.13.2; Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 7, § 2454.

Minnesota. Employers may not discriminate against employees or applicants who hold a medical marijuana card or who test positive for marijuana, unless a failure to discriminate “would violate federal law or cause an employer to lose a monetary or licensing-related benefit under federal law or regulations.” If an employee uses, possesses, or is impaired by medical cannabis on the employer’s premises during work hours, then an employer may take action. Even then, however, employers must allow employees to explain (and present verification of enrollment in the patient registry) before taking any adverse action. Minn. Stat. §§ 152.32, 181.953.

New York. Employers cannot discriminate against certified medical marijuana users. A certified medical marijuana user is deemed to have a disability and employers must reasonably accommodate the underlying disability associated with the legal marijuana use. Employers can, however, enforce their policies prohibiting employees from performing work while under the influence. N.Y. Pub. Health Law § 3369; N.Y. Labor Code § 201-d.

But what about California? California currently permits employers to forbid applicants and employees to use cannabis, regardless of whether it is medically prescribed. We refer you to our fearless prediction, however, that California will soon inhale the winds of change and join those states that protect medical cannabis users against employment discrimination. Two California legislators have proposed a bill that would amend the FEHA to create a new protected category: medical marijuana card holders. The bill would prohibit employers from discriminating against individuals for testing positive for cannabis or for being a qualified patient with an identification card. Continue to monitor this space for further developments.

If you have any questions regarding compliance with cannabis laws, please feel free to contact your favorite Seyfarth cannabis attorney. You can also get further into the weeds on developments in cannabis law at Seyfarth’s marijuana-specific blog: The Blunt Truth.