Proposed rule changes seek to protect California employees’ privacy as companies increasingly rely on technology to make business decisions.

The California Consumer Privacy Act, per its name, generally allows consumers to have some control over how businesses use the personal data they collect. But a portion of proposed revisions includes limits on employers’ use of Automated Decisionmaking Technology (ADMT).

The revisions include letting employees know when ADMT has informed a pay cut, demotion, suspension, or termination.

We will continue watching these rules develop.

A joint letter from the UC Berkeley Labor Center and a long list of other organizations and individuals warned of the potential harms of ADMT absent “robust guardrails;” the letter cited “disproportionate impacts on people of color, women, and immigrants.”

“We believe that employers can use data-driven technologies in the workplace in ways that benefit both workers and their businesses; the goal is not to block innovation,” the letter read. “In fact, our organizations can offer many examples where technology has helped make jobs safer, opened up new skills and careers, and improved the quality of products and services. But it will take robust guardrails, of the kind that the CCPA begins to establish, to ensure that workers are not harmed by a rapidly evolving set of often unproven and untested technologies, many of which employers and even engineers themselves do not fully understand.”

If you suspect that you’ve been mistreated or discriminated against at work, contact Keller Grover for a free and confidential consultation. We have been protecting employee rights for decades, and we can advise you of your rights, as well as the best steps forward.

 

Amazon, IKEA pay applicants over allegations of unfairly denying jobs

Amazon, IKEA and the Los Angeles Dodgers were among big-name employers who recently settled alleged violations of California’s Fair Chance Act.

The so-called ”Ban the Box” law, which took effect in 2018, prevents companies from asking job applicants about their criminal histories before making job offers, and from rescinding preliminary offers to such applicants without deeper consideration. It was intended to prevent unnecessary hurdles to employment.

The settlements mean the companies will pay the individuals for lost wages or other harms, as well as “take corrective action to protect against future discrimination,” the California Civil Rights Department said. 

It’s a reminder for workers of the importance of knowing and advocating for your rights.

“Nobody deserves to get locked out of the job market,” CRD Director Kevin Kish said in the settlement announcement. “These settlements are going to ensure workers and job applicants across California get the protection they are entitled to under the Fair Chance Act.”

The specifics

The allegations involve a type of employment discrimination outlined in the Fair Chance Act.

A sampling of the allegations:

• Amazon turned down a delivery driver applicant because of a more than seven-year-old conviction.
• IKEA denied an applicant without showing how the conviction history related to or would negatively affect duties building furniture.
• Kohl’s denied a warehouse worker applicant after an unlawful criminal history questionnaire.
• The Dodgers didn’t notify a guest services job applicant about why the person was denied – or allow the applicant to offer evidence challenging the decision.
• The Citizen Hotel and MPIJet turned down applicants based on criminal histories that had been sealed, dismissed, or expunged.

The protections, and why they matter

Almost one in three adults in California have an arrest or conviction that can make it hard to find a job. The state, which has been ramping up Fair Chance Act enforcement, views the law as protecting public safety by helping these people get opportunities to support themselves and their families.

Since 2018, the CRD has reached more than 100 Fair Chance Act settlements, including one last year for more than $50,000 with Octapharma Plasma. 

The law doesn’t mean employers must hire applicants with criminal records, but it prevents businesses from outright tossing their applications without further consideration. Job advertisements also can’t include blanket statements excluding anyone who doesn’t have a clean record.

Basically, the law prevents most employers (see specifics here) with at least five workers from asking about an applicant’s criminal history before making a conditional job offer. Then, the employer must consider the nature and gravity of the offense, the time that has passed, and the nature of the job sought, among other factors. The law requires employers to show that the criminal history would directly and adversely relate to performance of job duties. 

Notably, the employer may not ask about arrests that did not result in convictions, about referrals to or participation in pretrial or posttrial diversion programs, or about convictions that have been sealed, dismissed, expunged, or statutorily eradicated.

If the employer decides to disqualify the applicant, it must notify the applicant of its preliminary decision in writing. The employer must explain the disqualifying conviction, provide a copy of the criminal history report, and tell the applicant that he or she has the right to respond within five business days. If, even after an applicant’s response, the employer turns down the applicant, the employer must provide a second written notification outlining the decision, any procedure to challenge the decision, and the applicant’s right to file a complaint with the state.

If you think that you or someone you know has faced employment discrimination, contact Keller Grover for a free, confidential consultation. We can advise you about your situation and the best steps to take. In our 30 years litigating fraud and employment cases, we have recovered billions of dollars for clients.

 

A pair of employment settlements by one of the most iconic employers in California demonstrates the difference workers can make when they stand up for their rights.

Disney recently agreed to a $43 million settlement related to gender pay disparities, as well as a $233 million wage theft settlement.

Both settlements stem from lawsuits originally filed in 2019. The details of the cases can be instructive for employees who feel that their rights are being violated but are unsure about what they can do about it.

Gender Pay Suit

The gender pay settlement stems from a common business practice that California has worked to stop: Use of prior compensation information to determine pay for a new employee. That practice tends to perpetuate gender-based pay disparities.

According to Forbes, LaRonda Rasmussen filed the original lawsuit, alleging that six men with the same job title received significantly more pay — including one with less experience. She later was joined by about 9,000 other women who worked or had worked for Disney.

The settlement didn’t require Disney to admit a gender discrepancy, but it did require the company to hire an outside labor economist to analyze pay equity during the next three years, as well as someone to train compensation personnel, Forbes reported.

California has sought to promote pay equity with its Equal Pay Act, which has been enhanced multiple times. The prohibition against asking about prior salaries took effect Jan. 1, 2018.

If you suspect that your employer is paying women less, contact Keller Grover for a free, confidential consultation. We advise employees about prudent next steps, and in our 30 years litigating fraud and employment cases, we have recovered billions of dollars for clients.

Wage Theft Suit

The $233 million agreement appears to be the largest wage theft settlement in state history, Voice of OC reported. 

A law that Anaheim voters approved in 2018 required all businesses that had received a city subsidy to pay workers at least $15 an hour in 2019, increasing $1/hour each year through 2022, with a cost of living raise every year thereafter. Tips or other extra pay cannot offset the wage rates, according to the law.

The settlement means underpaid employees will get all of the money they were owed, plus interest and penalties.

The state has been increasing minimum wage, bumping it up to $16.50 this year, though it’s higher in certain situations (here are details based on location and industry). As in the Anaheim situation, some localities have higher minimum wages.

Contact Keller Grover for a free, confidential consultation if you think you are being underpaid. We can advise you about your situation and what to do; in our 30 years litigating fraud and employment cases, we have recovered billions of dollars for clients.

 

The new year will bring a series of new or clearer protections for California workers, from safeguards against intimidation and discrimination to more generous paid leave; we’re here to help you know what to watch for. Knowing your rights is the first step to guarding them. 

Here’s a rundown of some of the more noteworthy changes to California employment law that take effect in 2025:

1. 1. Pay: Minimum wage increases by 50 cents in January (to $16.50/hour). Health care minimum wages will increase again in July. 

• Employer intimidation: Starting Jan. 1, employers are banned from requiring workers to attend meetings about religious or political issues, including those discouraging unionization. Employees scheduled to work during that time must be paid, whether or not they attend the meeting, and businesses must not retaliate against individuals who choose not to attend. SB 399 outlines exceptions for political, higher education and religious organizations, and employers still can hold meetings about legally required or job-related information. The penalty for violations is $500 per employee. 

• Employer discrimination: In 2025, SB 1100 prohibits employers from requiring a driver’s license for a job unless duties specifically involve driving and an alternative would not be reasonable. SB 1137 clarifies that employers may not discriminate against workers based on any combination of protected characteristics. 

• Paid family leave: Under prior California law, businesses could require employees to take up to two weeks of earned but unused vacation time before using paid family leave benefits to do things such as care for a very ill family member, bond with a new child, or make accommodations for active duty. AB 2123 erases that requirement as of Jan. 1.

1. 1. Standard communication of whistleblower rights: Employers have been required to post employee rights, including whistleblower rights. In 2025, AB 2299 will make this a standard posting, drafted by the state labor department (see the posting here), which includes the California Attorney General’s Whistleblower Hotline number. We recommend that workers thinking about taking whistleblower action contact an experienced whistleblower attorney to clearly understand their rights and prudent steps forward; we offer free, confidential consultations.

• Freelance Worker Protection Act: The law, effective Jan. 1, outlines basic protections for freelance workers. It requires clear contracts detailing the project scope, as well as pay rate and pay method, for any work exceeding $250 over a four-month period. Also, freelancers must be paid within 30 days of work completion unless the contract says otherwise, clients cannot require freelancers to accept less than the contract amount to get a faster payment, and clients can’t retaliate against freelancers for seeking payment. Freelancers who aren’t paid are entitled to double payment plus costs and attorney’s fees.

We wish you a prosperous and protected 2025.

In more than 25 years litigating fraud and employment cases, the lawyers at Keller Grover have recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for clients and class members, and we’ve helped whistleblowers make successful reports and claim rewards. We can advocate for you. Contact us for a free, confidential consultation.