Seyfarth Synopsis: Though the election is over, politics continue to boil watercoolers in workplaces across California. So while employers presumably know that they must provide employees with time off to vote—we hope!—they also must recognize that their employees’ political rights are not confined to the polling place. Employees Have a Broad Right To Engage in Political Activities A peculiar California statute (section 1101 of the Labor Code) prohibits employers from making, adopting, or enforcing any rule, regulation,…

Seyfarth Synopsis: With apologies to Dr. Seuss, we’ve penned an ode to the judicial chaos of the year just past, highlighted by three California Supreme Court decisions—Alvarado v. Dart Container Corp., Dynamex Operations v. Superior Court, and Troester v. Starbucks Corp.—all of which deviated from federal or common law norms to create more new cal-peculiar law that is friendly to plaintiffs and hostile to California business. Happy New Year! The California Supremes, as we so…

Seyfarth Synopsis: For certain employment-related contracts, California legislation effective January 1, 2019, will limit efforts to prevent disclosure of information relating to claims of unlawful acts and sexual harassment in the workplace. Read on for the devilish details. California employers will soon have to heed a new crop of laws, born of the #MeToo movement, which will limit the terms permitted in employment-related contracts. What types of contracts, and what kinds of terms, you may…

Seyfarth Synopsis: Members of the plaintiffs’ bar submit about 500 PAGA notices each month to California’s Labor and Workforce Development Agency. Each notice presages yet another PAGA lawsuit against yet another hapless California employer. But today we consider a new sort of PAGA-focused lawsuit. This recent complaint filed last week is not on behalf of a California law enforcement agency against some employer, but rather is on behalf of employers, and against a law enforcement…

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…

Being thankful for all things Cal-peculiar, our blog team is taking a break this week.  We’ll be back next week with more on what’s happening in the world of California employment law, and what makes it different. Happy Thanksgiving!…