Compliance Stuff

On April 23, 2025, President Trump issued an Executive Order entitled “ Restoring Equality of Opportunity and Meritocracy ” (“Executive Order”). This Executive Order is one in a series issued by President Trump with the goal of eliminating Diversity Equity and Inclusion (“DEI”) policies and practices . This Executive Order focuses on dismantling legal claims for discrimination based on a disparate impact theory of liability. Under the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”), among many other federal and state laws, disparate impact liability exists where a neutral policy or practice is shown to have a disproportionately negative effect on a protected group, such as race, national origin, and gender, regardless of intent. There are various legal defenses to disparate impact claims , including showing that the policy or practice is “job-related” or based on a legitimate “business necessity.” Notwithstanding available affirmat...

It is no surprise that businesses are seeking ways to utilize AI to increase efficiency, including developing automated decision-making systems to assist in hiring and promotion processes. The California Civil Rights Council is actively working on new laws to address potential employment discrimination based on protected characteristics when using AI in personnel decisions. This includes considerations of whether facially neutral factors ( e.g. , criminal history) may still constitute discrimination. On February 7, 2025, the Civil Rights Council published its  second round of modifications  to proposed employment regulations regarding automated decision systems. For employers in the process of implementing AI to make personnel decisions, here are some notable changes to keep in mind: The new definition of an "agent" has been expanded to include any person acting on behalf of an employer, directly or indirectly, to exercise a function traditionally exercised by the employer o...

  In 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court published its decision in   Viking River Cruises v. Moriana   ( Viking River ), which was hailed as a “Big Win for California Employers.” The decision allowed for partial enforcement of arbitration agreements in actions brought under California’s Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA). The celebration of the “Big Win” was short-lived as the fight over the enforceability of arbitration agreements in PAGA actions continued immediately after   Viking River   was decided. Recently, PAGA plaintiffs began implementing a new anti-arbitration strategy wherein they attempted to bring a representative PAGA action that purportedly excluded the arbitrable portions of a PAGA action . Specifically, the PAGA plaintiffs assert that their representative PAGA action is solely based on alleged Labor Code violations against other,  non-party  employees. The PAGA plaintiff asserts that their PAGA action includes no arbitrable individual clai...

  Under section 226(e), knowing and intentional wage statement violations give rise to a claim for penalties of up to four thousand dollars ($4,000), along with the plaintiff’s costs and reasonable attorney's fees. California employers have become accustomed to wage and hour litigation involving “derivative” wage statement claims that are predicated on a separate Labor Code violation.   For example, many lawsuits claim employees were required to work off the clock during meal breaks— i.e. , the employer failed to rerecord and compensate for all hours worked—and thus the employees’ wage statements failed to accurately show all hours worked and all earned wages.    A specific court decision significantly reduces potential liability arising from technical and “one-off” Labor Code violations for those employers who made reasonable and good faith efforts to comply with the Labor Code, and who believe they are complying with the law. In representative lawsuits, plaintiffs ...