We’re pleased to cross-post a piece by our sister blog, Trading Secrets, regarding California’s peculiar take on employee non-solicitation provisions.

On November 1, 2018, the California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District affirmed a trial court’s ruling in AMN Healthcare, Inc. v. Aya Healthcare Services, Inc. et al., No. D071924, 2018 WL 5669154 (Cal. App. 2018), which (1) invalidated the plaintiff’s non-solicitation of employees provision in its Confidentiality and Non-Disclosure Agreements (CNDAs), (2) enjoined AMN from enforcing or attempting to enforce the employee non-solicitation provision in its CNDA with any of its former employees, and (3) awarded $169,000 in reasonable attorneys’ fees to defendants for plaintiff’s use of the provision.

The case is a significant decision which may impact some employers’ continued use of employee non-solicitation provisions with their California employees, at least in certain industries. There is now a split in California authorities and the issue is likely ripe for California Supreme Court guidance.

AMN and Aya are competitors in the business of staffing temporary healthcare professionals, namely providing “travel nurses” to medical care facilities across the country.  When former employees, named as individual defendants in the action and who worked as travel nurse recruiters in California, left AMN for Aya, AMN brought suit against Aya and the former employees, asserting 11 causes of action, including for breach of contract and trade secret misappropriation.

The Trial Court Ruling

The trial court granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment on all plaintiff’s claims, as well as summary judgment for defendants on their causes of action for declaratory relief and unfair competition asserted in their cross-complaint. The trial court held that under California law, the non-solicitation of employees provision was an unlawful restraint of trade in violation of Business and Professions Code section 16600 because it prevented the individual defendants from engaging in their lawful trade or profession—soliciting and recruiting travel nurses on temporary assignment with AMN—for at least one year post-termination. The trial court found no evidence of misappropriation of trade secrets, reasoning that the customer list of names and identities and other information at issue did not qualify as trade secrets, and any disclosure or use did not cause harm to plaintiff. The trial court awarded defendants their fees under Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5 and Civil Code section 3426. AMN appealed.

The Court of Appeal Decision

AMN required the defendant former employees to sign the CNDAs as a condition of their employment with AMN. Section 3.2 of the CNDAs, the non-solicitation of employees provision, states in pertinent part:

Employee covenants and agrees that during Employee’s employment with the Company and for a period of [one year] or eighteen months after [termination], Employee shall not directly or indirectly solicit or induce, or cause others to solicit or induce, any employee of the Company . . . to leave the service of the Company . . .

Analyzing Section 3.2 of the CNDAs, the Court of Appeal independently arrived at the same conclusion of the trial court, that the employee non-solicitation provision was void as an unlawful restraint of trade in violation of section 16600, which provides “[e]xcept as provided in this chapter, every contract by which anyone is restrained from engaging in a lawful profession, trade, or business of any kind is to that extent void.” Looking to the history of section 16600 and its broad language, as well as California case law evidencing a strong public policy in favor of employee mobility, the Court concluded that the non-solicitation provision “clearly restrained [the] individual defendants from practicing with Aya their chosen profession – recruiting travel nurses on 13-week assignments.” Writing for the three-judge panel, Judge Benke stated that the trial court was within its discretion to invalidate the provision because “unless a contractual restraint falls into one of section 16600’s three statutory exceptions . . . it ostensibly is void.”

Analysis of the Non-Solicitation Provision

In reaching its conclusion, the Court cited California case law rejecting employee non-competes and “overbroad” customer non-solicitation provisions.  “Indeed,” the Court observed, “the undisputed evidence in the record shows that, if a former AMN recruiter… was barred for at least one year from ‘soliciting or recruiting any travel nurse listed in AMN’s database,’ that would restrict the number of nurses with whom a recruiter could work… while employed by his or her new staffing agency” and “[n]ot being permitted to contact travel nurses who currently work for AMN could limit the amount of compensation a recruiter would receive with his or her new agency after leaving AMN.”

A crucial detail to note is the nature of the profession at issue in the case. The Court’s extensive discussion of the non-solicitation provision emphasized the fact that the job at issue is recruiting and soliciting. Defendant former employees were AMN “travel nurse recruiters” who all, for various reasons, left to join Aya as travel nurse recruiters. The ability of these particular defendants to engage in their profession, then, was directly affected by the covenant not to solicit employee traveling nurses. Based on that fact, the court rejected AMN’s attempt to analogize to Loral Corp. v. Moyes, which ultimately determined that the employee non-solicitation provision at issue was not an invalid agreement not to compete, but a non-solicitation agreement prohibiting the defendant from “raiding” the plaintiff’s employees. 174 Cal. App. 3d 268, 279 (1985). The Moyes court reasoned that the “restriction only slightly affects employees. They are not hampered from seeking employment with [the defendant’s new employer] nor from contacting [the defendant]. All they lose is the option of being contacted by him first.” The Court also distinguished AMN’s former employees’ recruiting role from the role of the former executive officer in Moyes, who was not similarly burdened by the restrictions set forth in the non-solicitation provision.

In its discussion of Moyes, the Court challenged the Moyes court’s “reasonableness” or “slight affect” approach to employee non-solicitation provisions and contrasted it with the plain language of section 16600 and the California Supreme Court’s decision in Edwards v. Arthur Anderson LLP, 44 Cal. 4th 937 (2008). The Court concluded that it “doubt[s] the continuing viability” of Moyes, and took the opportunity to further illustrate California’s uniquely strict policy against restraints of trade, even restraints subject to the “narrow-restraint exception” adopted by the Ninth Circuit in Campbell v. Trustees of Leland Stanford Jr. Univ.  817 F.2d 499 (9th Cir. 1987), which was explicitly rejected by the California Supreme Court in Edwards. The Court reasoned that while it doubted the continuing viability of Moyes post-Edwards, “the instant case does not rest on that analysis alone.” The Court determined that notwithstanding the survival of the reasonableness standard after EdwardsMoyes was factually distinguishable because the non-solicitation provision here, if enforced, would restrain individual defendants from engaging in their chosen profession, even if the provision was “narrow” or “limited.”

Analysis of the Trade Secret Claims

The Court also rejected AMN’s trade secret misappropriation claims. The nature of individual defendants’ profession also played a role in the court’s conclusion that there was no evidence of trade secret misappropriation. The Court was unpersuaded by AMN’s argument that the information at stake (the names, addresses, and identities of its “Travelers” or traveling nurses) was “secret” for purposes of AMN’s trade secret claims. In light of the evidence, the Court explained that in the industry of temporary healthcare professional staffing, “some travel nurses work with many different healthcare recruitment firms in order to increase the likelihood that they will be placed in assignments which fit their needs.” AMN even conceded that some of the information was accessible to Aya through independent means, for example, a social media group page for traveling nurses.

Furthermore, the Court noted that some of the traveling nurses at issue had applied for employment with Aya before they were recruited for AMN by individual defendants, or least before individual defendants joined Aya. The Court found that a list of names and email addresses of nurses that one individual defendant took was never actually used to take, or attempt to take, AMN’s business. Thus, while it may have been “wrong” for that individual defendant to send the information to her personal email, the court found “no evidence she or Aya ever used or relied on such information to recruit, or attempt to recruit, any of the travel nurses on that [list of Travelers and their information].” The Court concluded that plaintiff was neither harmed by any such disclosure nor was such a disclosure a “substantial factor” in causing plaintiff any harm. Additionally, the Court found that plaintiff had not demonstrated the competitive information that one of the individual defendants had taken qualified as trade secret information because it was very general and there was no evidence that Aya obtained any economic value from its disclosure.

Analysis of the Trade Secret “Exception” to Section 16600

Moreover, in rejecting plaintiff’s tort claims for breach of duty of loyalty and intentional and negligent interference with prospective economic advantage, the Court rejected the argument that the employee non-solicitation provision could be justified under a trade secret exception to section 16600. The Court reasoned that because the allegedly confidential information was not “secret,” AMN’s agreements fell outside the common law “trade secrets exception” to section 16600. The Court cited The Retirement Group v. Galante to reiterate that contractually preventing the misappropriation of trade secrets is not so much an “exception” to section 16600, but instead enjoining tortious conduct that is “enjoinable because it is wrongful independent of any contractual undertaking.” 176 Cal. App. 4th 1226, 1238 (2009). The Court reasoned under the Retirement Group decision that while a plaintiff may seek an injunction to prevent actual or threatened misappropriation of trade secrets, it cannot obtain an injunction to enforce a non-compete or non-solicitation provision on the grounds that the provision is designed to protect trade secrets. The Court held that the tort claims failed because section 16600 precludes an employer from restraining an employee from engaging in his or her “profession, trade, or business,” even if that employee uses information that is confidential but not a secret.

Upholding the Injunction and Award of Fees

The Court concluded by affirming the trial court’s grant of summary judgment on defendants’ declaratory relief and unfair competition claims, and upholding the injunction entered against AMN. In its review of the injunction prohibiting enforcement of the non-solicitation provision against any former employees, the Court examined evidence that AMN had brought a similar suit against an employee who left for a competitor and that AMN was continuing in its efforts to enforce section 3.2 by sending cease and desist letters to former employees upon their acceptances of employment with competitors. The Court rejected plaintiff’s contention that the injunction was overbroad or imprudently granted.

With respect to the award of fees under section 1021.5 of the California Code of Civil Procedure, the Court upheld the award, noting that this was an important issue affecting the public interest, and conferred a significant benefit on many people, i.e., all current and former AMN California employees who had signed a CNDA containing a similar non-solicitation provision.

It is unclear whether the plaintiff will seek California Supreme Court review or whether employer groups will mobilize to challenge the decision through legislation or amicus briefing.

Steps Forward

In sum, while many California courts have followed the reasoning in Moyes over the years, there is now likely a split in authority in California concerning the continued viability of employee non-solicitation provisions, at least in certain industries and positions, like recruiting and staffing. Going forward, plaintiff employers may argue that this case is limited to its facts and the unique industry involved and point to Moyes and its progeny to defend such provisions. California Supreme Court review is likely needed to resolve these important issues. In any event, this decision serves as further confirmation of California’s aggressive pro-employee mobility policy and judicial hostility toward restrictive covenants and protection of company information. Employers should conduct a careful review of their employee non-solicitation provisions with California employees to address the uncertainty created by this decision. Employers should use extra care in specialized industries and positions where a non-solicitation covenant may prevent former employees from engaging in their chosen profession.

By Joshua M. HendersonIlana R. MoradyJames L. Curtis, and Craig B. Simonsen

Seyfarth Synopsis: CalOSHA published a news release TODAY, on a new emergency regulation for the electronic submission of CY 2017 Form 300A on Occupational Injuries and Illnesses.  CalOSHA submitted the rule yesterday, and will allow public comments until Tuesday, October 30th, with the intention of adopting it as final by November 5th!

According to CalOSHA, businesses operating in California that would be required to submit the CalOSHA Form 300A online include all establishments with 250 or more employees, unless specifically exempted by section 14300.2 of Title 8 of the California Code of Regulations, and establishments with 20 to 249 employees in the specific industries listed on page 8 of the emergency regulation’s proposed text (including common industries such as manufacturing, grocery stores, department stores, and warehousing and storage). The reporting deadline would be December 31, 2018. Beginning in 2019, the reporting deadline would be March 2 of the year after the calendar year covered by the form(s). So, for example, CY 2018 300A Forms would be submitted by March 2, 2019.

Cal/OSHA submitted the emergency regulation amending recordkeeping sections 14300.35 and 14300.41 of Title 8 of the California Code of Regulations to the Office of Administrative Law (OAL) on October 25.  Interested persons have until “October 30 to submit comments on the proposed emergency regulation.” OAL will have until November 5 to review and adopt or deny the proposed regulation.

For more information on this or any related topic please contact the authors, your Seyfarth attorney, or any member of the Workplace Safety and Health (OSHA/MSHA) Team.

Seyfarth Synopsis: The California Department of Fair Employment and Housing issues a yearly report describing its complaint and litigation trends. Below is the Reader’s Digest™ version.

The DFEH recently issued its 2017 Annual Report covering its fifth year in active litigation. In 2013, the California Legislature authorized the DFEH to file lawsuits under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”), California’s stricter version of federal anti-discrimination law, as well as under the Unruh Civil Rights Act, the Disabled Persons Act, and the Ralph Civil Rights Act. Over the years, the DFEH’s operations have expanded to 220 fulltime employees, including attorneys, investigators, paralegals, and mediators, working from five California offices. (That is likely bigger than most California law firms and corporate legal departments.) The DFEH is presently the largest state civil rights agency in the country, with the power to launch state-wide representative actions for uncapped damages, attorney fees and costs, and injunctive relief, such as requiring new or revised policies and employee training.

Opening the Door to More Complaints. The DFEH over the last year launched a series of initiatives making it easier to file a civil rights complaint in California. The centerpiece of the effort was a new case filing and management system, called Cal Civil Rights System (CCRS). It allows employees and tenants to file a complaint and trigger a state-led investigation process using an online platform. Now individuals, from the comfort of their living rooms, can file a complaint, schedule appointments with investigators, check on case status, submit notes and documents, request right to sue letters, and even make public records requests.

Given this new ease of access, it is no surprise that DFEH filings increased during 2017. The DFEH received nearly 25,000 administrative complaints and inquiries. That is a 5% jump from 2016 and 2015 (which had roughly the same number) and substantially more than the 19,000 filed in 2014. About 90% of 2017 complaints were employment-related, 5% were housing matters, and the remainder fell under the Unruh, Ralph, and Disabled Persons Acts. Approximately 19,000 complaints resulted in formal charges filed with the DFEH. About one-half of complaints, or 12,872, requested an immediate right to sue, thereby bypassing any investigation or vetting by the DFEH before involving the courts.

What is striking about the DFEH’s report is the number of age discrimination and retaliation complaints made in 2017. Almost 20% of employment complaints in 2017 were for age discrimination (up from 11% in 2016). The largest portion of charges requesting a right-to-sue asserted age discrimination and retaliation—totaling 30% of the bases alleged. Disability was the next most commonly asserted basis in 2017; charges asserting disability exceeded the number of ancestry, religion, national origin, marital status, color, and sexual orientation discrimination charges combined.

Los Angeles County was the most litigious region in 2017. Employees and residents of the County of Angels filled out 30% of the DFEH’s total docket. Los Angeles County also ran the board in every type of complaint within the DFEH’s jurisdiction: 21% of employment, 22% of Ralph Act, 25% of Disabled Persons Act, and 30% of housing-related complaints. Orange and San Diego Counties were the second and third most active regions, with 8% and 6% of complaints, respectively. Sacramento County—not San Francisco, Santa Clara, or other more populated areas—has surprisingly been the source of the most DFEH complaints in Northern California, for three years running. Placer County’s 139 complaints in 2017 makes it the most charge-happy county in California by population size (it also won this top-honor in 2016).

The DFEH’s report provides some demographic information on the 2017 class of complainants. Over the last year, 52% of complainants disclosed their race and 35% stated their national origin when filing with the DFEH. The largest group of reporters identified as Caucasian (32.5%) and American (52%), which is consistent with 2016 figures. Individuals identifying as Hispanic or Latino brought 28% of charges in 2017, and those reporting as African American filed 23% (also tracking 2016 statistics). The DFEH has not to date elected to track other demographic data regarding complainants, such as age, sex, gender, marital status, household income, or religion.

Investigations and Settlement Revenues Spiked. The DFEH saw a 22% increase in investigations to 6,160 in 2017. Only 888 of these complaints settled, or 14%, which is a 7% drop from 2016. The remaining 5,000 plus charges, presumably, carried over into 2018, were withdrawn by the claimant, resolved through private negotiation, dismissed by the DFEH, or consolidated with an overlapping charge.

The DFEH had a fruitful year in terms of settlement revenues. It netted 12% more in 2017, bringing $12,984,367 to state coffers. Notably, this figure does not count monies generated through settling any of the 35 civil complaints filed by the DFEH in 2017. The DFEH’s most successful year in terms of pre-lawsuit settlement revenues appears to have been in 2013, with $13,433,922.

The data suggest that the cost to settle a complaint increases as the matter moves through the DFEH’s review process. Cases settled for $8,966 on average within the Enforcement Division, the DFEH’s investigative arm. Where the parties agreed to participate in the voluntary dispute resolution process, it took $14,122 on average to resolve it. Once the matter reached a pre-suit posture, in mandatory dispute resolution, it cost employers $42,513 on average to settle. And after the case was referred to the Legal Division and DFEH attorneys got involved, the average settlement figure was $42,860. Early resolution efforts evidently pay off.

The DFEH Hand-Picks Charges It Brings to Court. The DFEH filed 35 lawsuits in 2017. That is less than 1% of the 6,160 complaints investigated by the Enforcement Division. The DFEH then referred 140 of those charges, or 2%, to the DFEH’s attorneys in the Legal Division. Only one-quarter of these matters ended up in litigation.

Complaints referred to the Legal Division split almost evenly between housing and employment matters. Housing cases made up 40%, followed closely by employment complaints at 39%, and Unruh Act charges at 24%. No Disabled Persons Act claims were sent to legal in 2017. These figures are largely in line with the DFEH’s 2016 referrals, although notably there was a 21% increase in Unruh Act charges considered for litigation in 2017. In 2015, the DFEH gave much more priority to employment matters, making up 56% of charges passed on to its lawyers.

While age discrimination complaints picked up in 2017, the DFEH did not give such claims preference. None of its lawsuits asserted a claim for age discrimination. Disability discrimination continued to be the DFEH’s focus, as it was in 2015 and 2016. The theory was asserted in 11 employment, seven housing, and eight Unruh-related lawsuits–or roughly 74% of cases. Retaliation was a close second with 10 such civil actions. Sexual harassment complaints slightly increased year over year from four to six. Discrimination based on religion, ancestry, and national origin resulted in less than a handful of suits over the last three years.

Key Takeaways. Each year the DFEH’s focus appears to shift towards litigation. Referrals from its enforcement to legal divisions have crept up over the years from 98 in 2014 to 140 in 2017. Recent technological changes to the DFEH’s claims and investigation process have brought new efficiencies within the agency and freed staff to give more individual attention to cases.

As the DFEH steps up its game, so should employers. Well-written policies and regular trainings are two ways to curtail bad employee behavior, ensure compliance with the law, and stay off the DFEH’s radar altogether (not to mention boost morale and productivity in the workplace). Los Angeles and Sacramento employers, in particular, should make this a priority given the number of charges filed each year from their own backyards.

When a complaint is made with the DFEH, get counsel involved early. The 2017 data show that claims resolve for the least amount of dough at the investigation stage. Companies that drag their feet may end up dealing with the legal department, where the chance of getting sued rockets up from 1% to 25%. Given our recent experience, it would be no surprise if this figure increased further in 2018. We will report on that next Summer, as we did on the DFEH’s report last year. Seyfarth Shaw is ready to assist in the meantime on ways to proactively avoid complaints, timely address DFEH inquires, and defend charges and litigation.

Seyfarth Synopsis: California Legislators sent Governor Jerry Brown 1,217 bills to consider in his final bill-signing period as Governor—more than any California governor has seen since 2004. The final tally: 1016 signed, 201 vetoed. Below is our full, final roundup of new laws that employers must comply with, bills that fell to the Governor’s veto pen, and bills that never made it to the Governor’s desk. Even though the Governor’s veto saved California employers from some truly awful legislation (such as AB 3080’s attempted ban on employment arbitration agreements), 2019 may well bring a new Legislature just as hostile to business, and a new Governor not known for the practical caution that sometimes has characterized Governor Brown. We expect that the vetoed bills will re-emerge, and may receive a more favorable gubernatorial consideration.

Sign up for our webinar on October 10, 2018 for a discussion of these results and implications for employers.

APPROVED

Sexual Harassment Bills

Human Trafficking Awareness. SB 970 requires hotel and motel employers (excluding bed and breakfast inns), to provide—by January 1, 2020, and once every two years thereafter—at least 20 minutes of interactive human trafficking awareness training to employees likely to interact with human trafficking victims. The Department of Fair Employment and Housing can seek an order requiring an employer comply with these requirements. Adds section 12950.3 to the Government Code.

Sexual Harassment Omnibus Bill. SB 1300 adds a section to the Government Code that declares the purpose of harassment laws is to provide all Californians with equal opportunity to succeed in the workplace. To that end, the bill expressly affirms or rejects specified judicial decisions in:

  • Harris v. Forklift Systems: approving the standard in Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s concurrence that in a workplace harassment suit “the plaintiff need not prove that his or her tangible productivity has declined as a result of the harassment. It suffices to prove that a reasonable person subjected to the discriminatory conduct would find, as the plaintiff did, that the harassment so altered working conditions as to make it more difficult to do the job.”
  • Brooks v. City of San Mateo: prohibiting reliance on Judge Alex Kozinksi’s Ninth Circuit opinion to determine what conduct is sufficiently severe or pervasive to constitute actionable harassment under FEHA.
  • Reid v. Google, Inc.: affirming the California Supreme Court’s rejection of the “stray remarks doctrine,” because the “existence of a hostile work environment depends on the totality of the circumstances and a discriminatory remark, even if made not directly in the context of an employment decision or uttered by a nondecisionmaker, may be relevant, circumstantial evidence of discrimination.”
  • Kelley v. Conco Companies: disapproving use of this case to support different standards for hostile work environment harassment depending on the type of workplace.
  • Nazir v. United Airlines, Inc: affirming this case’s observation that “hostile working environment cases involve issues ‘not determinable on paper.’ ”

SB 1300 also:

  • Expands an employer’s potential FEHA liability for acts of nonemployees to all forms of unlawful harassment (removing the “sexual” limitation).
  • Prohibits employers from requiring an employee to sign (as a condition of employment, raise, or bonus): (1) a release of FEHA claims or rights or (2) a document prohibiting disclosure of information about unlawful acts in the workplace, including nondisparagement agreements. This provision does not apply to negotiated settlement agreements to resolve FEHA claims filed in court, before administrative agencies, alternative dispute resolution, or though the employer’s internal complaint process.
  • Prohibits a prevailing defendant from being awarded attorney’s fees and costs unless the court finds the action was frivolous, unreasonable, or groundless when brought or that the plaintiff continued to litigate after it clearly became so.
  • Authorizes (but does not require) employers to provide bystander intervention training to its employees.

SB 1300 would have—contingent upon SB 1038 also passing—subjected employees alleged to have engaged in harassment to personal liability for retaliation, discrimination, and other adverse employment actions taken against any person who has opposed practices forbidden by FEHA or participated in a FEHA action. As SB 1038, discussed below, failed to make it out of the Legislature, this proposed amendment in SB 1300 does not become operative.

SB 1300 amends Government Code sections 12940, 12965 and adds Government Code sections 12923, 12950.2, 12964.5.

Sex Harassment Settlement Agreement Confidentiality Restrictions. For settlement agreements entered into on or after January 1, 2019, SB 820 will prohibit and make void any provision that prevents the disclosure of information related to civil or administrative complaints of sexual assault, sexual harassment, and workplace harassment or discrimination based on sex. SB 820 expressly authorizes provisions that (1) preclude the disclosure of the amount paid in settlement and (2) protect the claimant’s identity and any fact that could reveal the identity, so long as the claimant has requested anonymity and the opposing party is not a government agency or public official. SB 820 suggests that a violation of its provisions would give rise to a cause of action for civil damages. Adds section 1001 to the Code of Civil Procedure.

Banning Waivers of Rights to Testify. As to any contract or settlement agreement entered into on or after January 1, 2019, SB 3109 makes void and unenforceable any provision that waives a party’s right to testify in a legal proceeding (if required or requested by court order, subpoena or administrative or legislative request) regarding criminal conduct or sexual harassment on the part of the other contracting party, or the other party’s agents or employees.  Adds section 1670.11 to the Civil Code.

Strengthening Prohibitions Against Harassment With Respect to Professional Relationships. SB 224 gives additional examples of professional relationships where liability for claims of sexual harassment may arise and authorizes the DFEH to investigate those circumstances. Amends section 51.9 of the Civil Code and section 12930 and 12948 of the Government Code.

Requiring Sexual Harassment Education by Talent Agencies. AB 2338 requires talent agencies to provide adult artists, parents or legal guardians of minors aged 14-17, and age-eligible minors, within 90 days of retention, educational materials on sexual harassment prevention, retaliation, and reporting resources. For adult model artists only, the talent agency will be required to provide materials on nutrition and eating disorders. Talent agencies will also have to retain, for three years, records showing that those educational materials were provided. Adds Article 4 (commencing with Section 1700.50) to Chapter 4 of Part 6 of Division 2 of the Labor Code.

Expanding Scope of Required Sexual Harassment Training. SB 1343 requires an employer of five or more employees—including seasonal and temporary employees—to provide certain sexual harassment training by January 1, 2020. Within six months of their assuming their position (and once every two years thereafter), all supervisors must receive at least two hours of training, and all nonsupervisory employees must receive at least one hour. SB 1343 also requires the DFEH to make available a one-hour and a two-hour online training course employers may use and to make the training videos, existing informational posters, fact sheets, and online training courses available in multiple languages. Amends sections 12950 and 12950.1 of the Government Code.

Requiring Sexual Harassment Education for In-Home Support Services. AB 3082 requires the Department of Social Services to develop or identify—and provide a copy and description to the Legislature by September 30, 2019—(1) educational materials addressing sexual harassment of in-home supportive services (IHSS) providers and recipients, and (2) a method to collect data on the prevalence of sexual harassment in the IHSS program. Adds section 12318 to the Welfare & Institutions Code.

Non-Harassment Bills

Lactation Location. AB 1976 requires employers to make reasonable efforts to provide a room or location (that is not a bathroom, deleting “toilet stall” and inserting “bathroom”) for lactation. The also bill authorizes a temporary lactation location if certain conditions are met and provides a narrow undue hardship exemption. The Governor vetoed the similar, more onerous, SB 937, discussed below. Amends section 1031 of the Labor Code.

Pay Statement: Right to Receive. Stating it is declaratory of existing law, SB 1252 provides employees the right “to receive” a copy of—not just inspect or copy—their pay statements. Amends section 226 of the Labor Code.

Rest Breaks in Petroleum Facilities. AB 2605 exempts from rest-period requirements certain workers who hold “safety-sensitive positions,” defined as a position whose duties reasonably include responding to emergencies in the facility and carry communication devices. The exemption applies only to workers covered by a collective bargaining agreement and subject to Industrial Wage Commission Wage Order No. 1. But employers must pay exempted workers one hour of pay at the regular rate if the rest period is interrupted to respond to an emergency. Because AB 2605 is an urgency statute, these provisions took effect immediately when approved by the Governor on September 20, 2018 and will sunset on January 1, 2021. The author of this bill sought to carve out an exemption for these positions in light of the recent Augustus v. ABM Security Services, Inc. case. Adds section 226.75 to the Labor Code.

Port Drayage Motor Carries. SB 1402 requires the DLSE to post a list on its website of port drayage motor carriers with any unsatisfied judgment or assessment or any “order, decision, or award” finding illegal conduct as to various wage/hour issues, specifically including independent contractor misclassification and derivative claims. This bill also extends joint and several liability to the customers of these drayage motor carriers for their future wage violations of the same nature. Adds section 2810.4 to the Labor Code.

Contractor Liability. Passed as an urgency statute to make clarifying changes to last year’s AB 1701—which created joint liability for construction contractors and subcontractors—AB 1565 immediately repeals the express provision that relieved direct contractors for liability for anything other than unpaid wages and fringe or other benefit payments or contributions including interest owed. For contracts entered into on or after January 1, 2019,  the direct contractor must specify what documents and information the subcontractor must provide in order to withhold a disputed payment. Amends section 218.7 of the Labor Code.

Criminal History. SB 1412 requires employers to consider only a “particular conviction” (“for specific criminal conduct or a category of criminal offenses prescribed by any federal law, federal regulation, or state law that contains requirements, exclusions, or both, expressly based on that specific criminal conduct or category of criminal offenses”) relevant to the job when screening applicants using a criminal background check. Amends section 432.7 of the Labor Code.

Women on Boards. SB 826 requires California-based publicly held corporations to have on their board of directors at least one female—defined as people who self-identify as women, regardless of their designated sex at birth. The deadline for compliance is December 31, 2019. A corporation may need to increase its authorized number of directors to comply with this requirement. The bill imposes minimum seat requirements that must be filled by women, proportional to the total number of seats, by December 31, 2021. The Secretary of State must publish a report by July 1, 2019 of the number of corporations whose principal executive offices are in California and have at least one female director, and an annual report beginning March 1, 2020, detailing the number of corporations that (1) complied with requirements in 2019, (2) moved their headquarters in or out of California, and (3) were subject to these provisions during 2019, but no longer publicly traded.

For each director’s seat not held by a female during at least a portion of the calendar year—when by law it should have been—the corporation will be subject to a $100,000 fine for the first violation and a $300,000 fine for further violations. Corporations that fail to timely file board member information with the Secretary of State will also be subject to a $100,000 fine. Adds sections 301.3 and 2115.5 to the Corporations Code.

Mediation Confidentiality. SB 954 requires attorneys, except in class actions, to provide their mediating clients with a written disclosure containing the confidentiality restrictions provided in Section 1119 of the Evidence Code and obtain the client’s written acknowledgment that the client has read and understands the confidentiality restrictions. This duty arises as soon as reasonably possible before the client agrees to participate in mediation or a mediation consultation. The bill is of little consequence as an attorney’s failure to comply is not a basis to set aside an agreement prepared in or pursuant to a mediation. Amends Evidence Code section 1122 and adds Evidence Code section 1129.

Class Action Settlements. Among many other changes not directly relevant to this blog, AB 3250 revises amendments to Code of Civil Procedure section 384, which took effect immediately upon the Governor’s signing SB 847 on June 27, 2018 (SB 847 also added relevant Code of Civil Procedure sections 382.4 and 384.5). By virtue of SB 847, Section 384 requires a court, before the entry of a judgment (including consent judgment, decree, settlement agreement approved by the court) in a class action, to determine the total amount that will be payable to all class members, and set a date when the parties are to report to the court the total amount that was actually paid to the class. After the report is received, the court must amend the judgment to direct the defendant to pay the sum of the unpaid residue, plus interest on that sum at the legal rate of interest from the date of entry of the initial judgment (AB 3250 deletes this italicized language and replaces it with “that has accrued thereon”), to nonprofit organizations or foundations to support projects that will benefit the class or similarly situated persons, or that promote the law consistent with the underlying cause of action, or to child advocacy programs, or to nonprofit organizations providing civil legal services to the indigent. An attorney for a party to a class action must notify the court if the attorney has a connection to a proposed nonparty recipient of class action settlement funds that could reasonably create the appearance of impropriety. The court must transmit a copy of the judgment to the Judicial Council, identifying nonparty recipients of class action settlement funds. Amends Business and Professions Code section 6402.2, Civil Code sections 51.7, 52.1, and 54.8, Code of Civil Procedure sections 384, 1013b, 1276, 1277, and 1277.5, Health & Safety Code section 103430, and Insurance Code section 10861.03. Repeals Code of Civil Procedure section 630.30.

VETOED

Banning Contractual Limits on Disclosure and Arbitration Agreements. AB 3080 would have prohibited businesses from requiring, as a condition of employment, employment benefit, or contract (1) that a job applicant or employee waive any right, forum, or procedure (e.g., arbitration) for a violation of FEHA or the Labor Code, and (2) that a job applicant, employee, or independent contractor not disclose instances of sexual harassment suffered, witnessed, or discovered in the work place or in performance of the contract, opposing unlawful practices, or participating in harassment and discrimination related investigations or proceedings. Biting their fingernails into the night on the Governor’s signing deadline, to employers’ relief, Governor Brown vetoed the bill. The Governor stated he was compelled to veto this bill because it “plainly violates federal law.” He remained consistent with his veto of a similar bill in 2015, in which he referred to recent court decisions that invalidated state policies that impeded arbitration and stated his desire to watch future US Supreme Court decisions on the topic before “endorsing a broad ban on mandatory arbitration agreements.” He stated that the “direction from the Supreme Court since my earlier veto has been clear—states must follow the Federal Arbitration Act and the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Act,” citing DIRECTV, Inc. v. Imburgia; and Kindred Nursing Centers Ltd. Partnership v. Clark to reject this bill’s premise “that the Act governs only the enforcement and not the initial formation of arbitration agreements.”

Expanding Record Retention. AB 1867 would have required employers with 50 or more employees to maintain records of complaints alleging sexual harassment for at least five years after the last date of employment of the complainant or alleged harasser, whichever is later. In his veto message, the Governor sagely noted this bill could lead to the retention of records for decades and could require complaints alleging sexual harassment to be maintained for the same amount of time regardless of the result of the investigative process. For those reasons, and because existing law requires personnel records, including records of complaints, be maintained “for suitable periods of time,” the Governor found the time expansion of this bill unwarranted.

Expanding Administrative Charge Filing Deadlines. AB 1870 would have extended a complainant’s time to file an administrative charge with the DFEH from one year to three years after the alleged incident for all types of FEHA-prohibited conduct, including sexual harassment. In vetoing this bill, Governor Brown found the current filing deadline, in place since 1963, “not only encourages prompt resolution while memories and evidence are fresh, but also ensures that unwelcome behavior is promptly reported and halted.”

Extending Liability for Employers and for Businesses Using Labor Contractors. AB 3081 would have amended the FEHA and Labor Code to (1) add status as a sexual harassment victim to existing prohibitions on discrimination against employees who are victims of domestic violence, sexual assault, or stalking, (2) create a rebuttable presumption of unlawful retaliation if an employer—within 30 days of notice of the victim’s status—discharges or threatens to discharge, demotes, suspends, or otherwise discriminates against a victim employee, (3) make a business jointly liable for harassment of workers supplied by the business’s labor contractor (existing law similarly extends liability for the contractor’s failure to pay wages and obtain valid workers’ compensation coverage), (4) prohibit businesses from shifting to their labor contractors duties or liabilities under the Labor Code workers’ compensation insurance provisions. Governor Brown rejected the bill on the basis that most of its provisions are unnecessary as already contained in current law, or, if new, are confusing.

Immigration Documents. AB 2732 would have subjected to penalties employers that destroy or withhold passports or other immigration documents, and required all employers to provide a “Worker’s Bill of Rights” (to be developed by the DIR) to all employees. AB 2732 also would have made various changes to the Property Service Worker Protection Act, contingent upon this bill’s and AB 2079’s passing. In a lesson to narrowly tailor bills, Governor Brown found the “provision of this bill that prohibits employers from withholding immigration documents from workers is very appropriate,” but still struck down this entire bill due to its “burdensome and unwarranted” mandate that all employers, even those having nothing to do with labor trafficking, provide the “Worker’s Bill of Rights’ to every employee in California. “This goes too far.”

Lactation Accommodations. SB 937 would have required employers to (1) provide a lactation room with prescribed features and access to a sink and refrigerator (or another cooling device suitable for storing milk) in close proximity to the employee’s workspace, (2) develop and distribute to employees a lactation accommodation policy, and (3) maintain accommodation request records for three years and allow the employee and Labor Commissioner access to the records. SB 937 would have also deemed the denial of time or space for lactation a failure to provide a rest period under Labor Code section 226.7, and required the DLSE to create a model lactation policy and a model lactation accommodation request form. Having signed AB 1976 to further “the state’s ongoing effort to support working mothers and their families,” Governor Brown vetoed this bill as not necessary.

Property Service Worker Protection Act Amendments. Governor Brown vetoed two bills (AB 2732, discussed above, and AB 2079) to amend the Property Service Worker Protection Act, which went into effect July 1, 2018 (AB 1978), and imposes requirements to combat wage theft and sexual harassment for the janitorial industry. In his veto message, the Governor urged AB 2079’s authors and sponsors to allow the Act—“the first of its kind in the country”—to be fully implemented before proposing significant changes. AB 2079 would have required (1) all employers applying for new or renewed registration to demonstrate completion of sexual harassment violence prevention requirements and provide an attestation to the Labor Commissioner, (2) the Department of Industrial Relations (DIR) to convene an advisory committee to develop requirements for, and maintain a list of, qualified organizations and peer-trainers for employers to use in providing training, and (3) employers, upon request, to provide requesting employees a copy of all training materials. AB 2079 would have also prohibited the Labor Commissioner from approving a janitorial service employer’s request for registration or for renewal if the employer had not fully satisfied a final judgment to a current or former employee for a violation of the FEHA.

Janitorial Workers Employment Classification. AB 2496 would have established a rebuttable presumption that janitorial workers who perform services for property service employers are employees, not independent contractors. Governor Brown vetoed the bill as premature, pending Legislature review of the California Supreme Court decision in in Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. Superior Court, which recently established a new test to determine whether a worker is properly classified as an employee or independent contractor.

Veterans and Military Personnel. Governor Brown vetoed SB 1427, which would have added veterans and military personnel as a protected class under the FEHA, because the bill’s other, non-employment-related provisions went “too far.”

Construction Industry Harassment and Discrimination. SB 1223 would have required the DIR to convene an advisory committee to recommend minimum standards for a harassment and discrimination prevention policy and training program specific to the construction industry, and to report to the Legislature specific implementation recommendations. Governor Brown vetoed this bill as better placed with the DFEH—responsible for enforcing the FEHA and its harassment and discrimination prevention and training requirements—not the Labor Commissioner.

FAILED TO PASS BOTH HOUSES OF THE LEGISLATURE

Personal Liability for Retaliation. SB 1038 proposed the same amendment to FEHA as SB 1300 to impose personally liability upon an employee for retaliating against a person who has filed a complaint against the employee, testified against the employee, assisted in any proceeding, or opposed any prohibited practice. As discussed, above, since SB 1038 failed, so did the same proposed amendment in SB 1300.

Hotel Panic Button. AB 1761 would have required hotel employers to provide employees with a “panic button” to call for help in case of an emergency, post a notice of these provisions in each guestroom, provided paid time off or a reasonable accommodation to an employee who is the victim of an assault, required an employer—upon the employee’s request—to contact police, prohibited employers from taking action against any employee who exercises the protections, and imposed penalties for violations of the proposed provisions.

Employers Pay Data. SB 1284 would have required private employers with 100 or more employees and required to file an EEO-1 report to submit a pay data report to the DFEH containing specified information. This bill would have also authorized fines to be imposed on employers who fail to report, authorized the DFEH to seek an order requiring the employer to comply, and require the DFEH to maintain the records for 10 years, though no individually identifiable information could be made public.

FAILED TO PASS THE HOUSE OF ORIGIN

Victims of Sexual Harassment. AB 2366 would have extended existing law that protects employees who take time off work due to being victims of domestic violence, sexual assault and stalking, to include victims of sexual harassment. This bill would have also extended job-protected leave to family members of such victims.

DLSE Time to File Extension. AB 2946 would have extended the time to file a complaint with the DLSE from six months to three years from the date of the violation and amended California’s whistleblower provision to authorize a court to award reasonable attorney’s fees to a prevailing plaintiff.

Familial Status. AB 1938 would have limited employer inquiries about familial status during the hiring or promotional process and made it unlawful to make any non-job related inquiry about an individual’s real or perceived responsibility to care for family members.

Pay Statements. AB 2223 would have provided employers the option to provide itemized pay statements on a monthly basis and extended the time an employer has to respond to a request to inspect or copy pay statements from 21 to 28 calendar days. AB 2613 would have imposed penalties on employers who violate Labor Code provisions requiring payment of wages twice per month on designated paydays, and once per month for exempt employees.

Flexible Work Schedules. AB 2482 would have allowed private non-exempt employees, not subject to collective bargaining agreements, to request a flexible work schedule to work ten hours per day within a 40-hour workweek without overtime compensation.

Marijuana. AB 2069 would have provided that the medical use of cannabis by a qualified patient with an identification card is subject to a reasonable accommodation by an employer.

Another Failed PAGA Effort. AB 2016 would have required an employee’s required written PAGA notice to the employer include a more in-depth statement of facts, legal contentions, and authorities supporting each allegation, and include an estimate of the number of current and former employees against whom the alleged violations were committed and on whose behalf relief is sought. AB 2016 would have prescribed specified notice procedures if the employee or employee representative seeks relief on behalf of ten or more employees. The bill excluded health and safety violations from PAGA’s right-to-cure provisions, increased the time the employer had to cure violations from 33 to 65 calendar days, and provided an employee may be awarded civil penalties based only on a violation actually suffered by the employee.

Sick Leave. AB 2841 would have increased an employer’s alternate sick leave accrual method from 24 hours by the 120th calendar day of employment to 40 hours of accrued sick leave or paid time off by the 200th calendar day of employment—but not needing to exceed 80 hours. An employer would have been able to limit the amount sick leave carried over to the following year to 40 hours. This provision would have applied to IHSS providers on January 1, 2026.

Criminal History. AB 2680 would have required the CA Department of Justice to adopt a standard form that employers would have to use when seeking the consent of an applicant for employment to conduct a conviction history background check on that applicant by the department. SB 1298 would have placed limits on the criminal history reporting that DOJ would provide to employers and required DOJ to provide the subject with a copy of the information and at least five days to challenge its accuracy before releasing it to the employer. AB 2647 would have prohibited evidence of a current or former employee’s criminal history from being admitted, under specified circumstances, in a civil action based on the current or former employee’s conduct against an employer, an employer’s agents, or an employer’s employees.

With this summary, our legislative team bids you, and Governor Jerry Brown, adieu. But don’t forget to sign up and attend our upcoming webinar for our verbal tribute to this year’s L&E legislation and Governor Brown’s final acts.

Seyfarth Synopsis: Governor Jerry Brown has already signed into law legislation covering meal period exceptions for truck drivers delivering commercial feed, adding communications to be considered as “privileged” for purposes of defamation suits, removing a reference to the seven-day waiting period for disability benefits under the paid family leave program, and clarifying salary history information.

As temperatures begin to drop, with pumpkin spiced lattes and the smells of dew in the air, things are still heating up in the Governor’s office. With only 16 days remaining in his signing period of his final term in office, the Governor has been active. This week he has been focused on bills covering climate—as he kicked off the Global Climate Action Summit on September 12 and recently signed bills blocking offshore oil drilling expansion, reducing carbon emissions, and setting a 100% clean electricity goal for the state. In addition, the Governor signed a much talked about bill, SB 954, requiring printed disclosures to mediation participants concerning mediation confidentiality.

While we’re keeping an eye on all employment bills sitting on his desk, here’s a quick recap of what he has already approved.  All these new laws take effect January 1, 2019 unless otherwise stated.

Meal Periods. Sponsored by the California Grain and Feed Association, AB 2610 carves out an exemption to Labor Code 512 by allowing truck drivers who transport commercial feed (i.e., livestock feed) to “remote, rural areas” to take a meal period after the sixth hour if their regular rate of pay is at least one and a half times the state minimum wage and the driver is subject to overtime pay.  Drivers must still be provided a second meal period at the tenth hour. The bill does not define “remote, rural areas,” but bill sponsors point to factors such as road conditions – narrow, twisting, in higher elevations or mountainous regions; limited rest stops, closed rest stops, or lack of road space to safely take a meal period; and low average speeds (e.g., 40-50 mph).

Privileged Communications. AB 2770 amends Section 47 of the Civil Code to add three types of communications regarding sexual harassment that are now considered “privileged” communications—meaning they cannot be used as a basis for defamation claim—unless they are made with malice (i.e., statements made with complete disregard for the truth or false accusations made out of spite, ill will, or hatred towards the alleged harasser). Specifically, the bill protects:

  1. Reports of sexual harassment made by an employee to their employer based on credible evidence and without malice;
  2. Communications made without malice regarding the sexual harassment allegations between the employer and “interested persons” (such as witnesses or victims); and
  3. Non-malicious statements made to prospective employers as to whether a decision to rehire, or not, would be based on a determination that the former employee engaged in sexual harassment.

Paid Family Leave. Prior legislation that went into effect on 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 removes the seven-day waiting period reference in Section 33013.1 of the Unemployment Insurance Code, since the waiting period rule has been removed.

Salary History Information. This year’s Fair Pay Act bill, AB 2282, was noted as sensible legislation that amends and clarifies ambiguities in Labor Code sections 432.3 and 1197.5 created by prior pay equity legislation—AB 1676 (Chaptered in 2016) and AB 168 (Chaptered in 2017). Read our in-depth analysis of AB 2282 here.

Immigration Status. SB 785, which went into effect upon the Governor’s signing on May 17, 2018 with a January 1, 2020 sunset date, 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.

What other new laws will fall upon our Californian employers? We’ll keep our eyes and ears glued to his office anxiously waiting to see what may fall next—fueled by our PSL coffees, of course. Stay tuned for our next in-depth update coming after Governor Brown’s last day to sign or veto bills deadline of September 30th.

Seyfarth Synopsis: From Mark Zuckerberg to the mayor of Stockton, the concept of Universal Basic Income is catching fire. What is this newfangled concept, and what can employers expect in the new emerging economy?

UBI – What Is It?

Universal Basic Income—“UBI”—is a form of social security, or a citizen’s stipend, to ensure everyone with a basic income from the state. The idea is to provide a basic degree of economic security: the recipient need not work or look for work, and the payment would come regardless of the individual’s other income. Countries like Finland and Canada have started to test UBI programs in certain jurisdictions, with some success.

Although the idea of UBI dates all the way back to the 18th century, the idea has received a lot of attention and support recently. Numerous Silicon Valley big game players have embraced the concept. Mark Zuckerberg of Facebook fame advocated for the concept during his Harvard commencement speech in 2017. Elon Musk of Tesla fame is another big supporter, opining recently that “we’ll end up doing universal basic income. It’s going to be necessary.”

Why has the concept been so revitalized? It all comes down to the future emerging job market. Elon Musk was very clear on this point: “there will be fewer and fewer jobs that a robot cannot do better. I want to be clear. These are not things I wish will happen; these are things I think probably will happen.” Indeed, back in March 2017, former President Barack Obama warned Congress that several reports found that as much as 50% of jobs could be replaced by robots by 2030. If that truly is the case, the diminished capacity for human workforce will leave many people without a job, and therefore without any other form of income.

Stockton Economic Empowerment Demonstration

It all seems very futuristic and distant—until we realize that UBI is already being tested right here in California! And, where better than in Stockton, California? Stockton has already faced great economic difficulty: as a city plagued by a loss in job opportunities and low wages, it even had to declare bankruptcy in 2012.

Beginning in the second half of 2018, the Stockton Economic Empowerment Demonstration (SEED) will pay $500 a month to a few hundred lower-income individuals. The money will come with absolutely no strings attached and will originate from the Economic Security Project (an organization aiming to raise awareness on UBI in the United States).

Stockton Mayor Michael Tubbs, Stockton’s youngest mayor in history, has been a prominent supporter of the program, seeing it as a way to alleviate some of the poverty pains the city has been experiencing with the growth of Silicon Valley and an increasingly heavy reliance on automation. The hope is to track the benefits of the distributions and use this as a pilot program for potentially expanding its use in other areas of California. Indeed, this hot topic of UBI is regularly discussed already by California state legislators and by gubernatorial candidates in California’s 2018 election.

What Does It All Mean?

Should we all just kick our shoes off and wait for the money to roll in? Probably best not to. UBI is meant to provide some security, but is in no way meant to replace working entirely. The program is just in its initial testing stages, and it is impossible to predict with any assurance the benefits and costs of running a UBI program on a larger scale.

Some studies indicate that people receiving a UBI would likely keep some form of employment, or take on part-time work. Indeed, researchers found that rather than decreasing employment, in areas using UBI, people in part-time work increased by a significant 17%. Like the surge of independent contractors in the new and emerging “gig economy,” employers could see a shift in the type of workers, particularly in low-wage positions that UBI tends to affect, and their expectations for benefits, flexibility, and pay.

Workplace Solutions:

So what should we do? In the emerging futuristic world we live in, keep an eye on the future of work. Team Seyfarth will keep an eye out and keep you abreast of this bizarre new world. Check out our wonderful future employer initiative. Meanwhile, if you have any queries, your friendly Seyfarth attorney is always happy to be your guide.

Edited By: Coby Turner

Seyfarth Synopsis: In June 2017, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors passed an ordinance requiring employers to provide a private “lactation location” where new mothers can pump their milk as well as a “lactation break” during the work day, in addition to other amenities. The ordinance is effective January 1, 2018 and is more expansive than current state and federal law requiring employers to make reasonable efforts to provide lactation breaks throughout the workday. In the wake of its passage and the approaching effective date, the City’s Office of Labor Standards Enforcement and Department of Public Health are issuing administrative guidance for employers.

San Francisco’s Lactation Ordinance Is More Comprehensive Than State and Federal Law

As we wrote a few months ago, San Francisco’s Lactation in the Workplace Ordinance goes into effect January 1, 2018. Virtually all San Francisco employers are covered; there is no minimum employee threshold that may exempt smaller employers from coverage. This latest ordinance is another example of the City’s ongoing effort to enact employment regulations with the goal of either addressing a perceived need in the absence of state or federal law (such as the City’s 2007 paid sick leave ordinance that went into effect over eight years before the California version) or, in the case of the lactation ordinance, exceed the requirements of existing law.

The ordinance calls for a private “lactation location” that must meet several requirements. The lactation location must not be a bathroom and must be (1) shielded from view, (2) free from intrusion by other employees or the public, (3) available as needed, (4) “in close proximity to employees’ work area,” and (5) safe, clean, and free of toxic hazardous materials. The employer also is required to provide the employee with a place to sit, a table/desk or surface to place a breast pump and personal items, access to electricity, a sink with running water, and a refrigerator. The ordinance also states that lactation break time “shall, if possible” run concurrently with any break time already provided to the employee, such as unpaid rest periods.

The ordinance’s requirements are certainly rooted in an important public policy addressing the health of new mothers and babies.  But potential problems arise from the ordinance’s use of vague phrases such as “close proximity to employees’ work area.” How close does “close proximity” mean: the same room? Down the hall? In the same building? This means the ordinance is in dire need of clarification to help both employers and employees comply with its novel terms. Enter the San Francisco Office of Labor Standards Enforcement and Department of Public Health to provide guidance.

Administrative Guidance Sheds Light On Compliance Expectations

Perhaps recognizing its own shortcomings, the ordinance requires the San Francisco Department of Public Health to provide employers with guidance for best practices for accommodation, as well as a model policy and model lactation accommodation request form.  To that end, the Department recently posted samples of a Lactation Accommodation Policy and Request for Lactation Accommodation that employers may use in its own operations or as guidance to develop its own policies.

The Department also posted a summary of legal requirements and best practices.  The summary is based on the previous public memo issued by Supervisor Katy Tang, who is the supervisor responsible for drafting and proposing the ordinance.  Interestingly, the “best practices” include “optional but highly recommended amenities” such as a hospital-grade breast pump, calendar or room reservation system, a full length mirror, Wi-Fi, “resource station” for educational literature, and lockers to place personal belongings. They also suggest temporary reduced hours, job sharing, flex time, telecommuting, and allowing the caregiver to bring the child to workplace for feedings. The ordinance currently does not require these amenities, but these best practices may foretell an expectation of how the City may interpret (or amend) the ordinance down the road.

City regulators may also issue interpreting regulations, but that would require adherence to a lengthy rulemaking process that would include the opportunity for stakeholders to provide public comment. We have been in frequent contact with the helpful analysts at the OLSE regarding additional guidance, and have been told that they are still working on the guidance in anticipation of the January 1, 2018 effective date.  Of course, we will continue to update readers on any future developments.

Workplace Solutions

The ordinance requires San Francisco employers to issue its lactation accommodation policy to employees, so employers should review and, if necessary, update their policies to comply.  While the City has posted a sample policy and request form, sample policies are not always right for every employer.  As always, employers still should ensure that any policy they implement and enforce is right for their own operations.

If you would like assistance with a review of your policies, please feel free to contact one of Seyfarth Shaw’s attorneys.

Seyfarth Synopsis: California’s new law, Assembly Bill 450, signed by Governor Brown on October 5, and effective January 1, 2018, imposes several new immigration-related duties on California employers and the potential for civil fines. AB 450 will require employers to understand or seek guidance on where the new law ends and federal immigration law begins. The complexities of U.S. immigration law make drawing this distinction very difficult. This blog post provides an in-depth analysis of foreseeable challenges California employers – whether or not they petition for foreign workers – will likely face.

“Mollusks of Jargon”

The California legislature and Governor Jerry Brown have once again entered the immigration fray.

This foray is not about its Sanctuary State legislation, recently enacted, and promptly decried by U.S. Attorney General Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III as “unconscionable”, and by Thomas Homan, Acting Director of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), as “[forcing his] hand,” and causing him to “quadruple workplace crackdowns.”

No, the latest California leap into the federal immigration ecospace is Assembly Bill 450, which imposes civil fines on employers ranging from $2,000 to $10,000 per violation for a variety of newly unlawful practices. Signed by Gov. Brown on October 5, 2017, AB 450 stands among a slew of new California laws taking effect on January 1, 2018. AB 450 will add three new sections to the Government Code and two new sections to the Labor Code – 90.2 and 1019.2.

Under the new law, every public and private employer in California, or any person acting on the employer’s behalf, must:

No Fourth Amendment Waiver 

Refrain from waiving Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches and seizures by:

  • granting voluntary consent to enter any non-public areas at a place of labor, except if presented with “a judicial warrant,”
  • granting voluntary consent to an immigration enforcement agent to access, review, or obtain the employer’s employee records without “a subpoena or judicial warrant,” except if an “immigration agency” (most often, this would be Homeland Security Investigations [HSI], an agency of U.S. Immigration & Customs Enforcement [ICE]) issues a Notice of Inspection (NOI) of Employment Eligibility Verification Form I-9s and other records required to be maintained under federal immigration regulations in order to verify employment eligibility;

Posted Notice of Worksite Inspection

 Post a notice at the worksite in the language the employer normally uses to communicate employment-related information to employees, within 72 hours of receiving an NOI, communicating the following information to employees:

  1. An immigration agency, identified by name, has issued an NOI (a copy of which must also be posted at the same time) and will conduct inspections of I-9 forms or other employment records.
  2. The date that the employer received the NOI.
  3. The “nature of the inspection” to the extent known.

Notice to the Union

Give written notice to the “employee’s authorized representative,” namely, the exclusive collective bargaining representative, if any, within 72 hours of the immigration agency’s issuance of an NOI:

  • Delivery of Requested Copy of the Notice. Provide any employee, upon reasonable request, with a copy of the NOI;
  • Provide Notice of Suspect Documents. Within 72 hours of the employer’s receipt of a written immigration agency notice informing the employer of the results of the agency’s inspection of the I-9s and the employer’s employment records, typically entitled, a “Notice of Suspect Documents” (NSD), provide a written notice to certain “affected employees” who apparently lack work eligibility (and any collective bargaining representative) of the obligations of the employer and the affected employees, containing the following information:
  1. A description of any and all deficiencies or other items identified in the written immigration inspection results notice related to the affected employee.
  2. The time period for correcting any potential deficiencies identified by the immigration agency.
  3. The time and date of any meeting with the employer to correct any identified deficiencies.
  4. Notice that the employee has the right to representation during any meeting scheduled with the employer.

No Re-Verifying Current Employees

 Refrain from re-verifying the employment eligibility of a current employee at a time or in a manner not required by the employment eligibility verification provisions of the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, 8 USC § 1324a(b), or that would violate any E-Verify Memorandum of Understanding the employer has entered into with the Department of Homeland Security.

* * *

To be sure, AB 450 offers sops feigning fealty to federal immigration law. Replete in the law are exceptions stating that these new mandates are not to be interpreted as requiring the employer to violate federal immigration law. California’s political leaders apparently believe that U.S. immigration rules – in the aspirational words of the Fifth Circuit court federal Court of Appeals – are “comprehensible by intelligent laymen and unspecialized lawyers without the aid of both lexicon and inner-circle guide.”

Regrettably, they are anything but. The court said in this 1981 decision in words that ring ever more true today:

Whatever guidance the [immigration] regulations furnished to those cognoscenti familiar with procedures, this court . . . finds that they yield up meaning only grudgingly and that morsels of comprehension must be pried from mollusks of jargonKwon v. INS, 646 F. 2d 909 (5th Cir., 1981). (Emphasis added.)

AB 450’s supporters, the California Labor Federation and Service Employees International Union, defend the law because it adds what they apparently see as reasonable but necessary burdens on employers in order to protect the state’s sizable population of undocumented employees from immigration raids and the abusive practices of some employers:

“[M]illions of union members are immigrants and worksite immigration raids undermine workers’ rights in significant ways: they drive down wages and labor conditions for all workers, regardless of immigration status; they interfere with workers’ ability freely to exercise their workplace rights; they incentivize employers to employ undocumented workers in substandard conditions because the threat of immigration enforcement prevents workers from complaining; they undermine the efforts of the state to enforce labor and employment laws.”

However laudable this legislative goal, AB 450 would be better titled, the “Have Your Immigration Lawyer on Speed Dial Act,” because that is how this new law will likely play out. This is probably why the Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM) steadfastly opposed AB 450, stating:

“[W]hile well intentioned, [AB 450] will add a host of unnecessary burdensome requirements, create many logistical challenges, and could possibly force human resource professionals to decide between abiding by federal law or state law.”

Consider some of the issues this new law will raise.

Role of California state courts to interpret federal immigration laws? AB 450 grants the California Labor Commissioner or the state’s Attorney General the exclusive authority to initiate civil actions to enforce its provisions. Assuming that the courts find that this law can peacefully coexist with Congress’s plenary authority over immigration law, then presumably California state administrative officials and courts will now be required to decide whether or not particular actions by employers are “required” by federal immigration law.

Distinguishing between a subpoena and a judicial warrant? AB 450 permits employers to grant federal immigration officers access to non-public worksite areas if the employer is presented with a “judicial warrant.” Access to a company’s employee records, however, is not prohibited under the law if immigration officers tender to the employer a “subpoena or judicial warrant.” Few employers likely realize, however, that a subpoena may be issued by a court or by administrative agency officials.

Under Immigration and Nationality Act § 235(d)(4); 8 U.S.C. §1225(d)(4), immigration officers are empowered to issue administrative subpoenas for books and records. If an employer refuses to comply with an administrative subpoena, however, then immigration officials can only enforce it if they persuade a federal judge to issue a judicial order. Yet – in the real world – when federal immigration agents issue an administrative subpoena carrying an official federal seal and, by its terms, demanding access to business records, pity the unsophisticated HR manager who violates California law if s/he “voluntarily” provides the business’s employee records.

Who are “immigration enforcement agents?” AB 450 does not define the term “immigration enforcement agent.” The phrase undoubtedly refers to officers of ICE and HSI. Less clear is whether other federal immigration officers should be characterized as immigration enforcement agents under this law. Federal officers with immigration enforcement authority — all of whom have taken an oath to “well and faithfully discharge [their] duties” — may hail from any number of Executive Branch departments and agencies. Under 8 CFR § 1.2, USCIS has set forth a broad definition of DHS employees who are designated by regulation as “immigration officer[s].” These include: “immigration enforcement agents, forensic document analysts, immigration agents (investigations), immigration enforcement agents, immigration inspectors, immigration officers, immigration services officers, investigator, intelligence agents, intelligence officers, investigative assistants, and special agents, among others.”

Conceivably, AB 450, by its terms, could also extend to federal officials performing immigration functions within the Departments of State, and Labor. Moreover, the current practice of one Department of Homeland Security  (DHS) sub-component, the Fraud Detection and National Security (FDNS) Directorate of United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), to conduct unannounced “administrative site visits” or “on-site compliance reviews,” raises immediate concerns about its officers’ future interactions with California employers.

Although FDNS asserts that it is not an immigration enforcement agency, a current job opening for the position, “Immigration Officer (FDNS),” – accessible here, and if the posting is taken down, also here – confirms that, “[every] day, our Immigration Officers (FDNS) . . . identify, articulate, and pursue suspected immigration benefit fraud.” Moreover, employers seeking to hire foreign workers must sign petitions under penalty of perjury for virtually every request for immigration benefits submitted to USCIS, requests which contain the acknowledgment, “I also recognize that any supporting evidence submitted in support of this petition may be verified by USCIS through any means determined appropriate by USCIS, including but not limited to, on-site compliance reviews,” see e.g., the Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker (Form I-129 Part 7, p. 6).

Indeed, the tasks of immigration site inspectors, according to FDNS, are to:

  • Verify the information, including supporting documents, submitted with the petition;
  • Verify that the petitioning organization exists;
  • Review public records and information on the petitioning organization;
  • Conduct unannounced site visits to where the beneficiary works;
  • Take photographs;
  • Review documents;
  • Speak with the beneficiary [the nonimmigrant worker sponsored under an employment-based petition by an employer]; and
  • Interview personnel to confirm the beneficiary’s work location, physical workspace, hours, salary and duties. (Emphasis added.)

The conceit asserted by FDNS that it is not an immigration enforcement agency is also belied by this disclosure on its website:

USCIS has formed a partnership with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), in which FDNS pursues administrative inquiries into most application and petition fraud, while ICE conducts criminal investigations into major fraud conspiracies. (Emphasis added.)

Even if a line can fairly be drawn between FDNS’s pursuit of immigration fraud and ICE’s activities in conducting criminal investigations, the use by AB 450 of the term, “immigration enforcement agent,” suggests at the very least an agency relationship between FDNS (the agent) and ICE (the principal).

Thus, a California employer could well face liability under AB 450 if it voluntarily consents to an FDNS officer’s request for access to the beneficiary’s “physical workspace,” the opportunity take to “take photographs” of the workspace (which routinely happens), and conduct a “[r]eview [of] records.” Yet, if a California employer were to refuse such a request, FDNS officers will no doubt report that refusal to USCIS adjudicators, who then routinely issue a notice of intent to deny or revoke work-visa petition approval. Notices of intent to revoke approval are especially problematic, because if they cannot be overcome in light of the obvious state law impediments in AB 450, then USCIS will revoke the employment authorization of the particular beneficiary. The result of a revocation is that the employee must be terminated upon the employer’s receipt of the notice of revocation, and that termination may constitute a failure on the part of the beneficiary to maintain lawful nonimmigrant status, which itself would trigger an obligation to depart the United States immediately with his or her immediate family members, or face removal from the United States at a hearing initiated by ICE before an Immigration Judge.

These problems become even more complicated if the employer provides facilities for its own workers and for the employees of any of its contractors, consultants, staffing companies, or vendors. While AB 450 does not prohibit a California employer from voluntarily sharing whatever information it might possess about the employees of its contractors, this new law, by its terms, mandates, on penalty of civil fine, that the employer refuse to grant voluntary consent to “enter any non-public areas at a place of labor” – apparently irrespective of the party employing the particular workers at the place of labor. Such a refusal likewise under current USCIS practice would lead to a similarly insurmountable notice of revocation, thereby terminating the employment authorization and nonimmigrant status of a contractor who was the subject of an FDNS unannounced site visit, and conceivably, resulting in a breach of contract by the customer for precluding the vendor from fulfilling the object of the contract, i.e, the rendition of contractually-agreed services.

Good faith immigration compliance and voluntary internal audits? DOJ and DHS component agencies encourage employers to voluntarily conduct internal immigration-compliance audits, and prescribe procedures to (a) correct I-9 paperwork errors, and (b) reasonably investigate circumstances suggesting that an employee may lack employment authorization. Such audits sometimes require the cooperation of current employees, as, for example, if corrections must be made to the employee portion of the I-9, Section 1, or if the employer suspects that the documents of identity and employment eligibility that the employee previously presented may not be genuine.

Given that AB 450 prohibits reverifying a current employee’s eligibility to work in the United States, should California employers defensively adopt “head in the sand” policies to preclude or discourage voluntary immigration compliance audits? The answer will depend on the employer’s business circumstances and employment practices in the particular industry. It may also turn on whether an employer has become aware of facts or credible assertions that call into question the employment eligibility of one or more employees.

Under the constructive-knowledge rule, an employer will be deemed to know whatever could have been discovered if a reasonable investigation had been conducted. Thus, if an employer declines to investigate suspicious circumstances suggesting unauthorized employment, ICE can maintain that an employer has violated federal law because company officials should have known that the business had hired or continued to employ a worker while aware that the individual had no right to be employed in the United States. Consequently, as SHRM feared, AB 450 will “force human resource professionals to decide between abiding by federal law or state law.”

Unintended harm to workers, their unions, and business operations? While the constructive-knowledge rule, in effect, requires an employer to conduct a reasonable investigation, the rule does not dictate the speed of the investigation. In past ICE investigations, some field offices have expressly allowed an employer time to respond to an NSD by phasing-in the duration of time when workers whose employment eligibility has been questioned must reverify their employment eligibility. A compliance phase-in would give the employer time to reverify its challenged employees in tranches. Without internally posting a notice to employees that ICE has begun in I-9 investigation, an employer granted phase-in permission by ICE would (a) privately and without fanfare reverify the employment eligibility of its most recently hired or least skilled workers, (b) speedily hire replacements (who would quickly be trained by employees with longer tenure or greater expertise in the operations of the business), and (c) then reverify the most senior or essential workers.

In this way, employers could conduct a constructive-knowledge investigation sequentially over time, business operations could continue with less disruption, the most valued employees could continue in employment for the time being, and unions would continue to receive dues payments, while retaining the ability to negotiate severance packages for terminated employees.

What, then, is the likely outcome of AB 450’s requirement that the employer give public notice within 72 hours to all employees and the local union that ICE has served a NOI? Today, many employers have found that when employees learn of an ICE worksite investigation, they quickly disappear for fear of arrest and deportation. Leaving the employer in the lurch, an unknown number of undocumented workers merely purchase new identities and forms of work permission on the street – documentation that, with the increasing sophistication of counterfeiters, will appear to be genuine, and thus be used to get a new job with the next employer. And so the cycle continues. Rinse and repeat. Consequently, the 72-hour NOI notice requirement in AB 450 will likely only serve to disrupt businesses and prompt undocumented workers to switch jobs, while shrinking the duration and amount of dues payments to unions.

A bonanza for translators? AB 450 requires employers, within 72 hours of receiving an NOI, to post a notice at the worksite in the language the employer normally uses to communicate employment-related information to employees, announcing that ICE has served an NOI on the employer, and providing other required details. Although not clearly phrased, the posting obligation seems to include the duty to provide a translation of the NOI itself into the language(s) ordinarily used to communicate with employees.

California is a state that prides itself on its diversity, which necessarily entails a noncitizen population speaking a multiplicity of languages. Many workers in the state do not speak English well, but do speak a native language, be it Spanish, Chinese, Tagalog, Vietnamese, Armenian, Khmer, Farsi, or Russian, among others.

Heaven forbid – for example – that ICE serves an NOI on a Friday. This will likely leave many an employer scrambling first to draft the AB 450 notice, and then to find weekend translators capable of quick turnaround to produce the required translations. Perhaps competent translators can be found, but probably only at a premium price for speedy, afterhours delivery.

The drafters of the legislation apparently did not realize, however, that ICE officers are usually quite willing to extend its own 72-hour regulatory deadline by a week or two for an employer to turn over its I-9s and other required records, or even longer, if the employer can provide a reasonable explanation for its inability to satisfy the 72-hour rule.

California lawmakers made no provision for extension of the posting deadline in AB 450. It therefore doesn’t take a Hollywood scriptwriter to visualize how this might play out:

(Scene 1) Mid-day on a Friday afternoon, ICE serves the employer with the NOI,

(Scene 2) As the weekend is about to begin, the employer scrambles to find a lawyer begins who will help word the AB 450 notice,

(Scene 3) At the same time, the employer scrambles to locate translators to prepare translations into multiple relevant languages,

(Scene 4) On Monday afternoon, just hours before the 72-hour deadline in AB 450, the employer posts the translations on the employee bulletin board,

(Scene 5) Later that afternoon, the workers read the posting, interpret it as a “run notice,” and flee the building,

(Scene 6) Minutes later, ICE officers – aware of the California statutory deadline – are already poised in the parking lot to apprehend the fleeing workers and process them for deportation, and

(Scene 7) Tuesday morning, the factory is idle and quiet, except for the angry voices of union bosses complaining to management about unfair labor practices.

* * *

AB 450 is not the first California encroachment on federal immigration law, and not likely the last. As the courts, federal immigration agencies, and the NLRB are left to sort out federal from state legal rights and duties amid the detritus of this law, California politicians will likely be at it again, concocting new immigration laws, while figuratively quoting a former governor’s thespian line: “[We’ll] be back!”

Seyfarth Synopsis:  California Governor Jerry Brown recently vetoed the Gender Pay Gap Transparency Act (AB 1209), which would have required California employers to produce pay data, without consideration of legitimate reasons for differences in pay, to the Secretary of State, who then would publish the data on the internet.

Read about this development in a recent post to Seyfarth’s Pay Equity Issues and Insights Blog.

Salary History Webinar tomorrow:  For further discussion about use of wage and salary history information across the country, please join the authors of the blog post for a webinar tomorrow, October 25, 2017, at 11:00 PT/1:00 CT. They will be talking about recent legislation in California, Oregon, and San Francisco (joining Massachusetts, Delaware, Puerto Rico, New York City and Philadelphia) in prohibiting employers from inquiring about wage history information from job applicants. Join them as they summarize the changes and legal implications and describe the practical considerations employers are considering in this new frontier. The webinar is free, but registration is required. Use this link to sign up.

Seyfarth Synopsis: New statutory obligations for California employers in 2018 will include prohibitions on inquiries into applicants’ salary and conviction histories, expanding CFRA to employees of smaller employers, expansion of mandatory harassment training to include content on gender identity, gender expression, and sexual orientation, and new immigration-related restrictions and obligations.

California Governor Jerry Brown spent his last day to sign bills in this Legislative Session, October 15, approving and rejecting a number of employment-related bills. Below is our annual summary of those bills that will have—or would have had—the greatest impact on California employers. All approved bills become effective January 1, 2018, unless stated otherwise. Watch this blog for in-depth pieces on the bills below that will pose the most challenges for employers.

APPROVED

Salary Inquiry Ban. After two unsuccessful attempts, AB 168 received the Governor’s approval to make it unlawful in California law for employers, including state and local governments, to ask applicants about their prior salary, compensation, and benefits. The employer may consider prior salary information the applicant voluntarily and without prompting discloses, in setting pay. Don’t forget that Labor Code section 1197.5 already prohibits an employer from using an applicant’s salary history, by itself, to justify a pay disparity. AB 168 will also require employers to provide the position’s pay scale to a job applicant upon reasonable request. Read our in-depth piece on AB 168, and practical implications, here. Adds Section 432.3 to the Labor Code.

Meanwhile, yesterday the Governor vetoed the other pay equity bill we were watching, Gender Pay Gap Transparency Act, AB 1209. More on that bill below.

Ban-the-Box: Prior Conviction History of Applicants. With the approval of AB 1008, the Governor and California Legislature have created yet another protected class of individuals entitled to sue employers under the Fair Employment and Housing Act: applicants denied employment because of their conviction history, where the employer is unable to justify relying on that conviction history to deny employment. AB 1008 makes it unlawful for an employer to include questions seeking disclosure of an applicant’s criminal history on any employment application, inquire or consider the conviction history of an applicant before extending a conditional offer employment, or consider or distribute specified criminal history information in conducting a conviction history background check. If an employer intends to deny a position solely or in part because of the applicant’s prior conviction, the employer must make an individualized assessment of whether the applicant’s conviction history has a direct and adverse relationship with the duties of the job, consider certain topics, and allow the applicant to dispute the accuracy of the conviction history. Read our in-depth analysis, implications, and tips, of the “Scarlet Letter Act” here. Adds Section 12952 to the Government Code, and repeals Section 432.9 of the Labor Code.

New Parent Leave Act and Parental Leave DFEH Mediation Pilot Program. SB 63 extends CFRA’s protections to smaller employers (with at least 20 employees within 75 miles) and prohibits those employers from refusing to allow employees—with more than 12 months and at least 1,250 hours of service—to take up to 12 weeks of parental leave to bond with a new child within one year of the child’s birth, adoption, or foster care placement. An employer employing both parents who both are entitled to leave for the same child does need not give more than 12 weeks of leave total to the employees (which may be granted simultaneously if the employer chooses). Further, an employer can recover the costs of maintaining the health plan for employees that do not to return to work after their leave exhausts because of a reason other than a serious health condition or other circumstances beyond the employee’s control. Beginning January 1, 2018 and ending January 1, 2020, the DFEH, after receiving funding from the Legislature, will create a parental leave mediation pilot program under which an employer may request all parties to participate in mediation within 60 days of receiving a right-to-sue notice. This bill prohibits an employee from pursuing any civil action under these provisions (and tolls the statute of limitations) until the mediation is complete, meaning when either party elects not to participate, withdraws from mediation, or notifies the DFEH that further mediation would be fruitless. Adds Section 12945.6 to the Government Code.

Retaliation: Expanding The Labor Commissioner’s Authority. With the Governor’s October 3 approval of SB 306, the DLSE will be authorized to investigate an employer—with or without a complaint being filed—when, during a wage claim or other investigation, the Labor Commissioner suspects retaliation or discrimination. The bill will also allow the Labor Commissioner or an employee to seek injunctive relief (that the employee be reinstated pending resolution of the claim) upon a mere finding of “reasonable cause” that a violation of the law has occurred. That injunctive relief, however, would not prohibit an employer from disciplining or firing an employee for conduct that is unrelated to the retaliation claim. The bill also authorizes the Labor Commissioner to issue citations directing specific relief to persons determined to be responsible for violations and to create certain procedural requirements. Amends Section 98.7 and adds Sections 98.74, 1102.61, and 1102.62 to the Labor Code.

Immigration: Worksite Enforcement Actions. AB 450, the “Immigrant Worker Protection Act,” prohibits employers from allowing immigration enforcement agents to have access to non-public areas of a workplace, absent a judicial warrant, and prohibits immigration enforcement agents to access, review, or obtain employee records without a subpoena or court order, subject to a specified exception. This bill requires an employer to provide notice of an immigration agency’s inspection of I-9 Employment Eligibility Verification forms or other employment records within 72 hours of receiving the federal notice of inspection—using a template created by the Labor Commissioner—to current employees; requires an employer to provide affected employees (i.e., those who may lack work authorization or whose documents have deficiencies) a copy of the inspection notice, upon reasonable request; and requires employers to provide affected current employees, and their authorized representative, a copy of the immigration agency inspection results and written notice of the obligations of the employer and the affected employee arising from the action. The bill grants exclusive authority to the Labor Commissioner or Attorney General to enforce these provisions and requires that any penalty recovered be deposited in the Labor Enforcement and Compliance Fund. Penalties for failure to satisfy these prohibitions and for failure to provide the required notices are: $2,000 up to $5,000 for a first violation, and $5,000 up to $10,000 for each further violation. The Labor Commission may recover up to a $10,000 penalty for each instance an employer re-verifies the employment eligibility of a current employee at a time or in a manner not required by federal law. Stay tuned for a detailed analysis of AB 450 coming soon. Adds Sections 7285.1, 7285.2, and 7285.3 to the Government Code; adds Sections 90.2 and 1019.2 to the Labor Code.

Harassment Training: Gender Identity, Gender Expression, and Sexual Orientation. SB 396 requires employers with 50 or more employees to add items to already mandated biennial supervisory training to prevent sexual harassment. The new content must include practical examples to address harassment based on gender identity, gender expression, and sexual orientation. Employers must also post a DFEH-developed poster regarding transgender rights. The bill also makes changes to the Unemployment Insurance Code. Amends Sections 12950 and 12950.1 of the Government Code.

VETOED

Gender Pay Gap Transparency Act. AB 1209 would (as of July 2019) have required employers with at least 500 California employees to collect information on differences in pay between male and female exempt employees and between male and female Board members. The bill would have required employers to submit the information to the California Secretary of State by July 1, 2020, in a form consistent with Labor Code § 1197.5, and to provide an update to the Secretary of State every two years. The bill would have required the Secretary to publish the information on a public website if the Legislature provided it with sufficient funding. Yesterday the Governor vetoed the bill, stating—as many employers’ groups had pointed out—that the bill’s ambiguous wording made it unclear that the bill would “provide data that will meaningfully contribute to efforts to close the gender wage gap. Indeed, I am worried that this ambiguity could be exploited to encourage more litigation than pay equity.” He also cited the trust he has placed in his Pay Equity Task Force to provide guidance and recommendations to “assist companies around the state with assessing their current wage practices.” For more detail on implications of this bill had it passed, click through to our in-depth analysis on AB 1209.

Reproductive Health. The Governor vetoed AB 569 on October 15, stating that the FEHA “has long banned such [reproductive health-based] adverse actions, except for religious institutions. I believe those types of claims should remain within the jurisdiction of the [DFEH].” The bill would have added a provision to the Labor Code prohibiting an employer from taking adverse employment action against an employee or the employee’s dependents or family members for their reproductive health decisions, including the use of any drug, device, or medical service (e.g., birth control, abortions, or in vitro fertilization). An employer that violates this prohibition would have been subject to penalties under Labor Code § 98.6, as well as reinstatement, reimbursement of lost wages and interest, and other appropriate compensation or equitable relief. This bill would have prohibited employers from attempting to contract out of these requirements, by making null and void any express or implied agreement waiving these requirements. The bill would have required employers to include a notice of these employee rights and remedies in their handbooks.

Employee Request: Injury and Illness Prevention Program. AB 978 would have required an employer to provide a free copy of the company’s injury prevention program to an employee, or their representative, within 10 days of receiving a written request. A representative would have included a recognized or certified collective bargaining agent, attorney, health and safety professional, nonprofit organization, or immediate family member. AB 978 would have allowed an employer to take reasonable steps to verify the identity or the person making the written request and authorized an employer to assert impossibility of performance as an affirmative defense against allegations of violations of these provisions. Governor Brown found this bill to be “unnecessary and duplicative” of current regulatory proposals sitting with the Cal-OSHA Standards Board and noted that their advisory committee would be “better suited to determine how to properly implement requirements of this kind.”

BILLS THAT FAILED TO MAKE THE LEGISLATIVE CUT

Opportunity to Work Act. The notorious AB 5 would have required employers with 10 or more employees in California to offer additional hours of work to existing nonexempt employees before the employer could hire additional or temporary employees. This bill piggy-backed on the San Jose voter-approved Opportunity to Work Ordinance that, effective March 2017, would have required employers to offer part-time employees additional hours before hiring new or temporary employees. Read more on what AB 5 would have implemented herehere, and watch here.

Rest Breaks. AB 817 would have created an exception to Labor Code section 226.7’s off-duty “rest period” requirement for employers providing emergency medical services to the public. The bill would have allowed EMS employers to require their employees to monitor and respond to emergency response calls during rest or recovery periods without penalty, so long as the rest period is rescheduled.

Retail Employees: Holiday Overtime. AB 1173 would have established an employee-selected overtime exemption that would have allowed a “retail industry” employee to work up to 10 hours per day with no overtime pay during the holiday season (November through January). Overtime paid at time and one-half of the employee’s regular pay rate would have applied to over 40 hours worked in a workweek or 10 in a work day; double time would have applied to work over 12 hours per day and over eight hours on the fifth, sixth, or seventh day in a workweek. The bill would have required employees to submit a written request for the flexible work schedule for approval by the employer. The authors of this bill did not specifically define what “retail industry” would have meant.

Overtime Compensation: Executive, Administrative, or Professional Employees. AB 1565 would have exempted an executive, administrative, or professional employee from overtime compensation if the employee earns a monthly salary of $3,956 or at least twice the state minimum wage for full-time employment, whichever is greater. This bill would have had California follow President Obama’s FLSA regulations increasing the yearly salary exempt threshold from $23,660 to $47,476 for executive, administrative, and professional workers. (Those regulations have been enjoined by a federal court.)

Health Professional Interns: Minimum Wage. AB 387 would have broadened the definition of employers required to pay minimum wage to include anyone who employs any person engaged in supervised work experience (i.e., students working clinical hours) to satisfy the requirements for licensure, registration, or certification as an allied health professional. This bill would have applied only to a work experiences longer than 100 hours and would not have applied to employers with fewer than 25 allied health professionals or a primary care clinic.

Resident Apartment Manager Wages. AB 543 would have extended an exemption from Industrial Welfare Commission orders allowing employers, who do not charge rent to a resident apartment manager pursuant to a voluntary agreement, to apply up to one-half of the apartment’s fair market value (no value cap) to meet minimum wage obligations to the apartment manager. This was up from the two-thirds previously provided but capped at $564.81 per month for singles, $835.49 for couples.

Voluntary Veterans’ Preference Employment Policy Act. Both AB 353 and its almost identical twin AB 1477 hoped to revise FEHA’s existing Vietnam-Era veterans’ status provision but failed to make it out of both houses and out of the house of origin, respectively. The bills would have expanded a private employer’s authority to institute and uniformly grant a hiring preference for veterans regardless of where the veteran served. The bills stated that the hiring preference would not have violated FEHA or any local or state equal opportunity employment law or regulation. But the bill would have prohibited the use of a veterans’ preference policy for the purpose of discrimination on the basis of any protected classification.

Credit and Debit Card Gratuities. AB 1099 would have required an entity—defined as “an organization that uses online-enabled applications or platforms to connect workers with customers … including, but not limited to, a transportation network company” (e.g., Uber)—to accept tips by credit or debit cards if the entity allows customers to pay with credit or debit cards. The bill would have required that the tip be paid to the worker the next regular payday following the date the customer authorized the card payment. This bill made it out of the Assembly but the author canceled its hearing in the Senate Committee on Labor and Industrial Relations so we may see this bill again next year.

Labor Organizations: Compulsory Fee Payments. AB 1174 would have established the “California Right to Work Act of 2017” to prohibit a requirement that employees pay into a labor union, charity, or other third party as a condition of employment or continuing employment. This bill would have made California part of the list of 28 other Right to Work states in the nation.

Employer Liability: Small Business and Microbusiness. AB 442 would have prohibited Cal OSHA from bringing any “nonserious violation” against small business or microbusiness employers without first notifying the employer of the violation and the right to cure within 30 days. This safe harbor would not have applied to any willful violation. The impact of this bill would have been far reaching—nearly 70% of California employers employ only a handful of employees.

Good Faith Defense: Employment Violations. SB 524 would have allowed an employer to raise an affirmative defense that, at the time of an alleged violation, the employer was acting in good faith when relying upon a valid published DLSE opinion letter or enforcement policy. This bill would not have applied to the DLSE’s prosecution of payment of unpaid wages.

PAGA: 2017’s Three Failed Efforts. 

AB 281 attempted to reform PAGA by (1) requiring an actual injury for an aggrieved employee to be awarded civil penalties, (2) excluding health and safety violations from the employer right to cure provisions, and (3) increasing employers’ cure period to 65 calendar days, up from 33.

AB 1429 would have limited the violations an aggrieved employee can bring, required the employee to follow specific procedures prior to filing suit, limited civil penalties recoverable to $10,000 per claimant and excluded the recovery of filing fees, and required the superior court to review any penalties sought as part of a settlement agreement.

AB 1430 would have required the Labor and Workforce Development Agency (“LWDA”) to investigate alleged Labor Code violations and issue a citation or determination regarding a reasonable basis for a claim within 120 calendar days; and allow an employee private action only after the LWDA’s reasonable basis notification or the expiration of the 120 day period. Read our further analysis of the proposed PAGA amendments here.

Workplace Solutions.

For more information on how these new Peculiarities might affect your company, read our in-depth focus blogs and contact your favorite Seyfarth attorney.