Compliance Stuff

On March 3, 2026, Administrative Law Judge Robert A. Giannasi held that employer Valley Radiology violated Section 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act (the “Act”) by offering an employee a severance agreement with overbroad non-disparagement and confidentiality provisions, adopting the National Labor Relations Board’s (the “Board”) 2023 reasoning in McLaren Macomb. The Prior McLaren Macomb Decision Section 7 of the Act guarantees employees the right to “self-organization, to form, join or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection.” Section 8(a)(1) prohibits an employer from interfering with, restraining, or coercing employees in the exercise of their Section 7 rights. In the McLaren Macomb decision, the Board held that the non-disparagement and confidentiality clauses in an employer’s severance agreemen...

On April 1, 2026, the Ninth Circuit in O’Dell v. Aya Healthcare Services, Inc. , 171 F.4th 1173 (9th Cir. 2026) held that the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”) protects employers from plaintiffs’ attempts to use inconsistent decisions about the enforceability of an arbitration agreement to invalidate all arbitration agreements in a class action . The court explained that extending a small number of arbitration rulings to bar arbitration for other employees would undermine the individualized nature of arbitration and conflict with the FAA’s strong policy favoring enforcement of arbitration agreements as written . This decision is a win for California employers. It generally reinforces the enforceability of arbitration agreements in a class action context and prevents isolated arbitration enforcement losses from automatically voiding the agreements for the rest of the putative class. Key Facts Former employees of a travel nursing agency filed a putative class action (not yet able certifie...

California lawmakers introduced  Assembly Bill 1940  ( AB 1940 ) in February 2026 to expressly include perimenopause, menopause, and postmenopause within the definition of “sex” under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA). If enacted, the bill would remove any ambiguity as to whether menopause-related conditions are covered and would put employers on clear notice that discrimination, harassment, or failure to accommodate employees experiencing these conditions may constitute unlawful sex-based discrimination. What AB 1940 Does The bill would make three primary changes to California law. Expands the Definition of “Sex” Under FEHA . AB 1940 would amend Government Code section 12926 to add perimenopause, menopause, postmenopause, and related medical conditions to FEHA’s existing definition of “sex,” which currently includes pregnancy, childbirth, and breastfeeding. Employers with five or more employees would be expressly prohibited from taking adverse actions, inc...

Target Corporation recently defeated class certification in a case pending in United States District Court for the Central District of California in  Montgomery, et al. v. Target Corp., et al.  The decision, authored by the Honorable Jesus G. Bernal, highlights the importance of the evidence presented in a motion for class certification, particularly in federal court. In this case, the plaintiffs alleged, among other things, that meal break premiums were not paid at the regular rate of pay (RROP) , that managers adjusted meal break time punches to cover up non-compliant breaks, that Target required on-premises rest breaks for a period of time, that employees were required to use their personal cell phones to look up items for customers without reimbursement, that employees were forced to clock out for meal breaks and continue working during the busy holiday periods, and that employees were forced to wait long periods to clock in for work without pay. In support of the motion ...

The National Labor Relation Board’s (“NLRB”) joint-employer standard has swung back and forth for nearly a decade, with the newly-appointed Trump NLRB most recently releasing a  final rule  reinstating the 2020 joint employer standard. For private California employers – especially those using staffing agencies, subcontractors, franchise models, or management agreements – the rule determines who can be included in a bargaining unit and who may be liable under a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) . Here’s where things stand and why it matters. The Back-and-Forth History Pre-2015 : The NLRB required  substantial, direct, and immediate control  over essential employment terms to find joint-employer status. 2015 –  Browning-Ferris  Expansion : The Board broadened the test to include  indirect control or even reserved (but unexercised) authority , dramatically increasing joint-employer exposure. 2020 Rule : The Board formally adopted a narrower, employer-...

On June 13, 2025, a California Court of Appeal struck down an arbitration agreement because of unconscionable terms entered by the parties in a separate employment agreement, governing different dispute resolution fora and procedures that were more favorable to the employer. In  Silva v. Cross Country Healthcare, Inc. , the Court held that the employment agreement and arbitration agreement (which did not have an integration clause) signed simultaneously as part of the hiring process must be read together , and that unconscionable—or, in other words, unfair—terms can render the arbitration agreement unenforceable. In  Silva , several employees brought class and representative claims against Cross Country Healthcare based on alleged California Labor Code violations. The employer moved to compel arbitration, asserting that the Arbitration Agreement, signed by the employees prior to employment, included a class action waiver clause and required arbitration of all claims between t...