Compliance Stuff

Five employee complaints triggered an investigation by the California Division of Labor Standards Enforcement (DLSE) that ultimately resulted in more than $215,000 in wage liability—an outcome that illustrates why employers should periodically conduct wage-and-hour self-audits. Many employers assume that if payroll is running smoothly and employees are being paid on time, their wage-and-hour practices must be complian t. Unfortunately, wage-and-hour laws are highly technical, and even well-intentioned employers can get them wrong. We recently heard from a prospective client who learned this lesson the hard way. What began as complaints from a few employees quickly turned into an extensive investigation that expanded far beyond the original complaint. Situations like this illustrate why conducting a periodic wage-and-hour self-audit can be one of the most effective ways to identify compliance issues before regulators do. When a Small Complaint Becomes a Big Problem The employer contacte...

HR compliance never stands still, and the past few weeks have brought several notable updates. From new federal guidance on DEI programs to clarifications on paid sick leave calculations and evolving standards around religious accommodations, employers have plenty to keep on their radar. DOJ Offers New Direction on DEI The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) recently issued a memorandum directed at federal agencies and federal-funding recipients, explaining how DEI programs must align with federal anti-discrimination laws . Although this guidance primarily is aimed at organizations that receive federal dollars, even private-sector employers without federal contracts should pay attention. Of course, the DOJ’s guidance after heightened federal scrutiny of DEI efforts. President Trump’s early Executive Orders labeled certain DEI programs “unlawful,” and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) attempted to provide clarity earlier this year. Now, the DOJ has reinforced those bounda...

On April 21, 2025, the California Court of Appeal issued a significant ruling in favor of employers. In  Bradsbery v. Vicar Operating , the c ourt held that revocable meal period waivers prospectively signed by employees are enforceable, unless the waivers are unconscionable or unduly coercive. The plaintiffs in  Bradsbery  alleged that t heir employer failed to provide them with meal periods as required by law, despite their signing revocable written agreements prospectively waiving their 30-minute meal period for work shifts between five and six hours. The waiver stated: I hereby voluntarily waive my right to a meal break when my shift is 6 hours or less. I understand that I am entitled to take an unpaid 30-minute meal break within my first five hours of work; however, I am voluntarily waiving that meal break. I understand that I can revoke this waiver at any time by giving written revocation to my manager. The employer argued that the waivers were valid because “neith...