Employers in industries with fluctuating daily labor needs, such as retail services, often require employees to call in ahead of a scheduled shift to find out whether they are needed to work. According to a recently-published California Court of Appeal decision, employees who are required to use such a call-in procedure may be entitled to "reporting time pay" if they are told not to come to work that day—even if the employees do not physically report to work ...
September 26, 2023 By: Carol K. Lucas Effective January 1, 2024, health care entities in California that propose to enter into “material change transactions” will be required to provide advance written notice to the California Office of Health Care Affordability (“OCHA”) ...
Starting next year, California residents who don’t have health care coverage could face a state tax penalty. Under the new Minimum Essential Coverage Individual Mandate, California residents who fail to maintain minimum essential coverage for themselves and their dependents could owe a state tax penalty, unless they qualify for an exemption ...
Effective Today, the California Department of Public Health (CDPH) will no longer require vaccinated individuals to wear masks in all indoor public settings under its updated Guidance for the Use of Face Masks (Updated Guidance). This effectively lifts the indoor mask mandate in most California counties, both where local officials have aligned with CDPH Guidance, and where officials never issued their own local mask mandate ...
Key Points As of January 1, 2022, skilled nursing facilities are not limited to hiring licensed nurses to fill the role of infection preventionist. California still requires the total time dedicated to the infection preventionist role be full-time. In January 2021, Assembly Bill (AB) 2644, codified as Health & Safety Code Section 1255 ...
Governor Jerry Brown approved California Senate Bill 798 on October 13, 2017. One provision of this bill imposes penalties for failure to file required reports under Business and Professions Code Section 805.01. Beginning January 1, 2018, individuals and entities with reporting obligations under Section 805.01 are subject to fines of up to $100,000 per violation for willful failures to file a Section 805 ...
Article PDFJust when businesses thought they had figured out their Proposition 65 compliance strategies, the State of California, through the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA), has proposed a substantial change that will drastically limit the use of the short-form safe harbor warning first authorized in 2018 ...
At its Voting Meeting today the Commission adopted a new standard offer contract available to any Qualifying Facility (QF) of 20 megawatts or less seeking to sell electricity to a Commission-jurisdictional utility pursuant to the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978 (PURPA). Under PURPA, Commission-jurisdictional utilities must provide QFs the option of executing any existing PURPA contract for which they qualify ...
October 18, 2023 By: Leah Lively California Governor Gavin Newsom recently signed SB 525 into law, which amends the California Labor Code to set industry minimum wage requirements for nearly all healthcare workers, whether they are hourly or salaried employees, or independent contractors. The law also provides these workers with an independent private right of action to enforce these minimum wage requirements ...
SB 977 was passed by the California Senate on June 26, 2020. If the bill is passed by the Assembly and becomes law, it will require health care systems, private equity groups, hedge funds, and academic medical centers to obtain advance approval by the California Attorney General for substantially all acquisitions or change of control transactions with health care facilities and providers ...
On October 13, 2017, Governor Brown signed SB 798, amending Business and Professions Code Section 805, Civil Code Sections 43.7 and 43.8, and Evidence Code Section 1157 to include licensed midwives within their scope. Notably, these changes only apply to licensed midwives, those professionals who pass the North American Registry of Midwives examination and are licensed by the Medical Board of California ...
On August 3, 2020, the California Supreme Court issued its highly anticipated decision in Ixchel Pharma, LLC v. Biogen, Inc., clarifying the bounds of legitimate competition under California tort and antitrust law. The Court’s ruling generally came down in favor of encouraging competition, reducing claims for tortious interference with contract, and decreasing the risk of litigation arising from normal competitive activity ...
On December 22, 2016, in Augustus v. ABM Security Services, Inc., Case No. S224853, the California Supreme Court issued a split decision on rest periods. In a decision in which four justices concurred, and two concurred and dissented, in part, the Court held that employers “must relieve their employees of all duties and relinquish any control over how employees spend their break time ...
In Union of Medical Marijuana Patients v. City of San Diego, the California Supreme Court unanimously held that the City of San Diego failed to analyze the potential environmental impacts of its medical marijuana dispensary law. While the main issue in this case was the definition of a project under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the ruling has important ramifications for the legal cannabis market as a whole ...
California employers should assess their meal period policies and practices in light of the California Supreme Court's February 25, 2021, decision in Donohue v. AMN Services, LLC (Donohue). This ruling: (1) prohibits California employers from rounding time punches for meal periods and (2) holds that time records showing non-compliant meal periods will raise a rebuttable presumption of liability for meal period violations ...
Yesterday, the California Supreme Court issued an important decision for employers that rejects the application of the federal de minimis defense to unpaid wage claims arising under California law. In Troester v. Starbucks, Case No. S234969 (July 26, 2018), the Supreme Court held that California law prohibits requiring employees to "routinely work for minutes off the clock without compensation ...
On March 4, 2019, the California Supreme Court ruled in Cal Fire Local 2881 et. al. v. California Public Employees' Retirement System that public retirement system members do not have a vested right to purchase "airtime" – nonqualified service credit unrelated to public service ...
In the recent case of 'Ixchel Pharma v. Biogen', the Ninth Circuit asked the California Supreme Court to resolve two questions “because of their significance for business torts in California.” The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit—which includes California—occasionally encounters questions of California law that it cannot resolve ...
Key Points The California Supreme Court clarified the so-called California Rule on public employee’s "vested rights" to pension benefits, holding that detrimental financial changes to employee pension benefits do not invariably require that offsetting comparable new advantages be provided. And it set a legal framework for analyzing that issue ...
On October 6, 2021, Governor Gavin Newsom signed Assembly Bill 45 (AB 45) into law. AB 45 permits the manufacture and sale of a wide range of products containing regulated amounts of industrial hemp. Below is a brief overview: What is industrial hemp? “Industrial hemp” is defined as cannabis plants that have no more than 0.3% tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) ...
February 16, 2023 By: Kathryn B. Fox and Charles Whitman Once again, California employers can require workers to sign arbitration agreements as a condition of employment. Following the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Viking River Cruises v. Moriana and in a reversal of its own prior decision, a divided three-judge Ninth Circuit panel found that AB 51 is preempted by federal law. Chamber of Commerce of the U.S., et al. v. Bonta, et al., No. 20-15291 (9th Cir. Feb. 15, 2023) ...
In Harris v. University Village Thousand Oaks, CCRC, LLC, plaintiffs, residents at Defendant’s continuing care retirement community who had previously signed binding arbitration agreements in their continuing care contracts, argued that under applicable California law, the arbitration agreements were invalid and they could therefore litigate their claims in a court of law. Defendant University Village sought to enforce the arbitration provisions of the continuing care contracts ...
Overview On 4 November 2022, the Ministry of Commerce of Cambodia issued two new regulations, namely, Prakas 226 on the Formalities and Procedures of Inspection and Investigation under the Law on Competition (“Prakas 226”) and Prakas 227 on the Conditions and Procedures of Negotiated Settlement under the Law on Competition (“Prakas 227”) ...
