Seyfarth Synopsis. On Thursday, September 5, 2019, the Legislature passed AB 51. This bill would ban mandatory arbitration agreements with respect to claims under the Labor Code and the Fair Employment and Housing Act while simultaneously disclaiming any intent to invalidate any agreement protected by the Federal Arbitration Act. Is this bill California’s latest clever—but predictably unsuccessful—effort to discriminate against
Continue Reading Zombie Apocalypse? Another (Unconstitutional?) California Assault on Arbitration
David D. Kadue
Employees Who Won’t Get On Board With Arbitration—Can Employers Rock The Boat?
Seyfarth Synopsis: Everything was smooth sailing with your latest greatest arbitration agreement, but then an employee refused to get on board. What do you do now? Keep reading for a primer on navigating some murky waters.
Even in a post-Epic Systems world, where more and more employers are rolling out mandatory arbitration agreements with class-action waivers, California has…
Continue Reading Employees Who Won’t Get On Board With Arbitration—Can Employers Rock The Boat?
Is California’s Latest Assault on Arbitration Constitutional?
Seyfarth Synopsis. Pending California legislation would make a mandatory arbitration agreement an unlawful practice under the Fair Employment and Housing Act, and a crime. How could that be consistent with the Federal Arbitration Act?
Under current law, California businesses can insist that employees and contractors enter valid agreements to resolve disputes in front of a neutral arbitrator instead of a…
Continue Reading Is California’s Latest Assault on Arbitration Constitutional?
California Supremes Prescribe “ABC” Test for Independent Contractor Status
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 …
Continue Reading California Supremes Prescribe “ABC” Test for Independent Contractor Status
Picking a Fight: How California Makes Employment Law Peculiar
Seyfarth Synopsis: Our mission here at Cal-Pecs is to illuminate how California employment law differs from the law that employers generally experience throughout America. In this back-to-basics piece, we provide some background and a brief catalog of stark contrasts.
In 1846, American settlers in Mexican Alta California staged the Bear Flag Revolt. They declared an independent republic, seeking freedom from…
Continue Reading Picking a Fight: How California Makes Employment Law Peculiar
Piece Rate in a Pickle: California Gets More Peculiar Still
The California Legislature seems intent on ending piece-rate pay as we have known it. A law effective January 1, 2016, goes beyond the previously discussed Bluford and Gonzalez decisions to mandate that employees who earn piece-rate wages be paid a special, separate rate for rest and recovery periods, as well as for all “other non-productive time.” Further, that rate will…
Continue Reading Piece Rate in a Pickle: California Gets More Peculiar Still
California Gender Pay Equality Bill To Be Strictest In Nation?
Representing what media observers call the nation’s most aggressive attempt yet to close the salary gap between men and women, SB 358 would substantially broaden California gender pay differential law. Since the bill landed on his desk September 1, all eyes have been on Governor Jerry Brown. Though aide Nancy McFadden tweeted on Women’s Equality Day (August 26) that “@JerryBrownGov…
Continue Reading California Gender Pay Equality Bill To Be Strictest In Nation?
Seyfarth Shaw’s 2013 Cal-Peculiarities Publication – It’s Here!
It’s here! On April 30, we released the 2013 edition of Cal-Peculiarities: How California Employment Law is Different, the industry’s only annual guide that focuses exclusively on the most vexing aspects of employment law in the country’s most populous state. Authored by Seyfarth’s California Workplace Solutions group, this 262-page guide captures the latest legislative, judicial and regulatory developments which …
Continue Reading Seyfarth Shaw’s 2013 Cal-Peculiarities Publication – It’s Here!
Seyfarth Shaw’s 2013 Cal-Peculiarities Publication – Coming Soon!
As you may know, Seyfarth Shaw is the only firm to publish a book annually that highlights the inevitable changes in California law. We want our blog readers to be the first to hear of the release of the 2013 edition!
California continues to be “where the future happens” for employment law. If your company does business in California, you …
Continue Reading Seyfarth Shaw’s 2013 Cal-Peculiarities Publication – Coming Soon!
California Legislature Departs From Federal Law To Require Employers To Provide Even Truly Burdensome Accommodations For Religious Observances
Both federal and California law have long forbidden religious discrimination in employment, while also requiring employers to grant reasonable accommodations for religious observances. A common accommodation is to modify a policy to enable an employee to engage in a particular religious observance (such as not working on the Sabbath). California has now set itself apart with the recent amendments to the FEHA.
Federal Law: Since 1977 the federal law has recognized that employers need not provide accommodations that would impose more than a minimal burden on the employer’s operations. And federal cases have also allowed employers, in enforcing personal-appearance codes, to accommodate certain grooming or dress practices by having the employee work in a designated area of the workplace.
California Peculiarities: The FEHA amendments essentially codify cases holding that employers must reasonably accommodate religious dress and grooming practices. But the Legislature has now made California quite distinct from federal law in two fundamental respects:
- It is now clear, if it was not before, that California law, unlike federal law, requires employers to show a truly significant “undue hardship” to avoid providing a reasonable accommodation.
- California now categorically disallows, as a form reasonable accommodation, the practice of having the employee work in a designated part of the workplace to avoid, for example, contact with customers.
Workplace Solutions: From a practical perspective, the new FEHA amendments will cause employers to review their policies and procedures relating to dress and grooming codes to ensure that they comply with California’s new, stricter provisions. The employer’s use of the interactive process in addressing disability accommodations could serve as a good model in addressing issues of religious accommodations, especially now that the undue hardship analysis in both kinds of cases will be essentially the same.
Another Perspective: Our guest author, Alan J. Reinach, Esq., Executive Director of the Church State Council, was instrumental in lobbying for these new amendments to FEHA. His legal practice emphasizes First Amendment religious freedom cases, and religious accommodation cases under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and related state civil rights laws. While his views do not necessarily reflect those of the authors or Seyfarth Shaw LLP, Mr. Reinach offers a thoughtful perspective worthy of careful consideration.
California Dresses Up Religious Accommodation Law
By: Alan J. Reinach, Esq.
On September 8, 2011, Governor Jerry Brown signed AB 1964 into law before a crowd of several hundred Sikh-Americans who had gathered to remember those slain at a Wisconsin temple earlier that summer. He spoke passionately about how California is a state of immigrants representing hundreds of nations, languages, and religions. His grandfather drove a wagon train in gold country, and only spoke German.
Continue Reading California Legislature Departs From Federal Law To Require Employers To Provide Even Truly Burdensome Accommodations For Religious Observances