Seyfarth Synopsis: The California Legislature has just created yet another protected class of individuals entitled to sue employers under the Fair Employment and Housing Act. The new class of potential plaintiffs are applicants denied employment because of their conviction history, where the employer is unable to justify relying on that conviction history to deny employment.
We’ve reported on two January
Continue Reading California Passes State-Wide Ban-the-Box Law
It’s been said the best things in life are free. In California, where running a business is very expensive, an unpaid internship program might seem a perfect gift. Employers of all sizes and in virtually all industries use internships to train and identify the next generation of superstar employees. Interns frequently bring new ideas to challenging business problems and provide
Continue Reading Unpaid Internships: Stocking Stuffer for Employers, or a Proverbial Fruitcake?
October 11, 2015, was Governor Brown’s last day to sign bills the California Legislature presented to him following the first year of the 2015-2016 Legislative Session. Below is a summary of what did and did not make Governor Brown’s final cut, and some practical tips for California employers to prepare themselves for compliance with these new California peculiarities.
SIGNED BY
Continue Reading 2015 California Labor and Employment Legislation Update: It’s Final!
The California Legislature adjourned Friday evening, September 11, to close its 2015-16 Legislative Session. It sent a number of employment-related bills to Governor Brown for consideration by his October 11, 2015 deadline to sign or veto the bills. Below is a summary of those before him for consideration, as well as some significant bills he has already signed or that
Continue Reading 2015 California Labor and Employment Legislation Update: The End (of Session) Is Near…
Since New Jersey led the way in 1994, many states have enacted so-called Megan’s Laws, which establish public online registries of individuals who have been convicted of a sex-based offense. California’s version of Megan’s Law is codified as California Penal Code § 290.46.
Section 290.46 requires all convicted sex offenders to register with the state’s sex-offender Registry. California then publishes
Continue Reading Megan’s Law: How California Limits its Use for Employment Purposes
By Robert Milligan and Joshua Salinas
As companies face increasing competitive and financial pressures, management is understandably consumed with running the day-to-day operations of the business and working to achieve business objectives and maximize the bottom line. As a result, it is not uncommon for companies to find themselves in situations where important assets are overlooked or taken for granted. Yet, those same assets can be lost or compromised in a moment through what is often benign neglect.
Authoritative sources estimate that companies lose hundreds of millions of dollars (if not billions) as a result of trade secret theft. At the same time, companies sometimes find themselves, through poor controls, exposed when they inadvertently obtain others’ trade secrets.
In the rush to deliver results, some companies take shortcuts in the hiring and departure process that often leave them exposed to claims for trade secret misappropriation, aiding and abetting breaches of loyalty, and intentional interference with contractual relationships or business expectancies with customers or employees.
California’s strong public policy against certain employee noncompetition agreements and post-termination restrictions on employee mobility means strong trade secret protections are essential for California employers to protect against the unlawful use or disclosure of valuable company information and related competitive issues when key employees join competitors. Accordingly, while non-competes may be void in California, prudent companies conducting business in California will ensure that their trade secret protection practices are state of the art, including their onboarding and offboarding process.
In this second video of a two-part series (see part one here), we illustrate some best practices when interviewing a competitor’s employees, as well as handling your own employees’ departures, regarding the protection of trade secrets and other confidential information in California. During the video, a prospective candidate offers to share during his employment interview his current employer’s trade secrets regarding sensitive business and customer information for the Southern California market. You will also see how the employer handles the exit interview of that employee.
When watching the video below, consider the following:
Click below to discover some of the best practices illustrated in the video and in general to protect trade secrets.
By Laura Maechtlen and Kristen Verrastro
During onboarding, it would not be unusual for an employer to ask a new hire to give written authorization for deductions from their final paycheck if the employee does not return employer provided uniforms, tools, or equipment. It also would not be unusual for employers to ask employees to supply their own equipment and tools, or clothing as a uniform when reporting for work.
In California, however, written authorization executed during the onboarding process will not suffice for reimbursement deductions at the time of termination. Additionally in California, employers cannot require employees to supply certain clothing, tools, and equipment without reimbursement.
Uniforms
When it comes to uniforms, federal law differs from California law:
Federal law: Federal law may allow employers to pass the costs of providing or maintaining uniforms to employees, as long as the employee’s pay would not drop below minimum wage in doing so.
California law: California law requires that employers pay for or reimburse nonexempt employees for all costs associated with uniforms, regardless of the employees’ compensation.
What is a “Uniform”?
Continue Reading On-Boarding Series: Uniforms and Tools and Equipment, Oh My! The Peculiarities Of California Law Regarding Reimbursement
By Laura J. Maechtlen and Chantelle C. Egan
It’s payday! If the employer uses direct deposit, an employee can conveniently and immediately access wages without going to the bank (or waiting for the check to clear). For that reason, it might seem that every new employee would want direct deposit. But, employers must be careful.
California requires that employers obtain
Continue Reading On-Boarding Series: Payment by Direct Deposit – Go Straight to the Bank, With Employee Consent
By Chantelle Egan and Laura Maechtlen
Drug testing implicates the California right to privacy, which is enshrined in our Constitution. Therefore, employers must be careful when drug testing is a component of their onboarding process.
The General Rule
A private employer in California can require a job applicant to pass a pre-employment drug test as a condition of employment, regardless
Continue Reading Onboarding Series: Pre-employment Drug Testing: Don’t Fail To Have A Compliant Program
By Laura Maechtlen and Kristen Verrastro
We’ve all been in this situation: you’re trying to get to know someone better, so you ask that person a seemingly innocent question which inadvertently elicits an answer you wish you could have avoided! If this happens in a social setting it’s unlikely to create a big problem, but if this type of scenario
Continue Reading On-Boarding Series: Stay Focused on the Job: Questions to Avoid during Interviews of California Applicants