California employees have new rights and benefits in 2024. Here are some of the most important changes to the law that workers should know about.

Paid sick leave expanded and reproductive loss leave granted

Starting January 1, California employers are required to provide workers at least five paid sick days, up from three days. In another new law, California employers must now grant employees up to five days off following a “reproductive loss,” which is defined as a miscarriage or stillbirth or a failed adoption, in-vitro fertilization, or surrogacy. 

Reproductive loss leave is an addition to a law that took effect last year that gives workers up to 12 weeks of family leave in a calendar year and extends the definition of a family member to include a “designated person,” which could mean an individual related by blood or whose association with the employee is the equivalent of a family relationship. Bereavement leave was also expanded to five days, which do not need to be taken in a row. 

Cannabis use outside of work hours

Assembly Bill 2188 makes it “unlawful for an employer to discriminate against a person in hiring, termination, or any term or condition of employment … if the discrimination is based upon the person’s use of cannabis off the job and away from the workplace.”

This means employers can no longer use hair or urine tests that detect “psychoactive cannabis metabolites” — evidence of past cannabis use from days or months ago — as a basis for terminating employees.

In addition, Senate Bill 700 makes it unlawful for an employer to request information on a job application relating to prior cannabis use.

Employers must pay for food handler cards

California law requires workers at restaurants who handle food to obtain a food handler card within 30 days of their date of hire. Senate Bill 476, which took effect January 1, shifts the burden of compensation related to obtaining the card to the employer. The law states that employers must relieve employees from work duties while they are taking a training course and examination and compensate them for their “hours worked” while in training or taking the exam, and any necessary expenditures or losses associated with the employee obtaining their food handler card. 

Fast-food minimum wage now $20/hour

Fast-food restaurants with more than 60 locations are now required to pay California employees at least $20 an hour.

Health care workers’ minimum wage increasing

As the state faces a health care staffing shortage, a law will set in motion annual minimum wage increases for certain healthcare workers over the next few years starting June 1. The minimum wage for covered health care workers at large health systems will increase to $23 an hour, stair-stepping up until reaching $25 an hour in June 2026. Smaller or rural health care facilities will see slower increases.

Other minimum wage increases 

• Starting January 1, the general California minimum wage increased from $15.50 an hour to $16 an hour. (Some cities and counties already have higher minimum wages than that; UC Berkeley maintains a chart.)
• California employees who earn salaries of less than $66,560 a year are now eligible for overtime pay.
• Computer software employees are eligible for overtime if they earn less than $55.58 an hour (up from $53.80) or $115,763.35 a year (up from $112,065.20).

Keller Grover is here to help workers with their employment-related disputes. We can help you better understand your rights, protections and options. 

In more than 25 years litigating fraud and employment cases, we have recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for clients and class members. Contact us today for a free, confidential consultation.

We told you last year about a disappointing federal appeals court decision that ended an attempt by the California Assembly to ban “forced arbitration” clauses. Workers who sign these clauses can’t take their employer to court to seek remedies and compensation for violations of the law. Under forced arbitration, the employees’ only recourse is a secret proceeding often tilted in favor of the employer.

It gets even worse. If your employer required you to sign a mandatory arbitration agreement as a condition of your employment, or as a condition to receive severance pay if you were laid off, here are some disturbing trends to be aware of.

In a report titled “The New Forced Arbitration Even Worse Than The Old Forced Arbitration,” the American Association for Justice highlights five tactics used by corporations that increase their already strong odds of winning an arbitration case. One deals with tactics used against consumers, forcing them into arbitration without an agreement, but the rest are relevant for workers who might face a forced arbitration:

• Companies can add pre-dispute hurdles before an arbitration can be filed
• They can refuse to pay fees, effectively blocking the start of arbitration
• They can change the rules in the middle of a dispute
• They can group arbitration claims together and dismiss them as a block

A CNBC article shows how X, the social media company formerly known as Twitter, was accused by former employees of refusing to pay arbitration fees after Elon Musk took over the company and Twitter laid off hundreds of employees. In one district court filing, a former senior staff network engineer, alleges that Twitter didn’t pay him severance and then delayed his arbitration by refusing to pay the fees.

Another similar case was filed as a class action, alleging Twitter delayed close to 900 arbitration cases by not paying filing fees after making laid off employees agree to mandatory arbitration as a requirement of receiving their severance packages.

Lower-wage workers are hurt disproportionately by forced arbitration. The National Employment Law Center found in 2019 that U.S. workers earning less than $13 an hour who were subject to employee-imposed forced arbitration were owed $9.27 billion in unpaid wages. Aspects of employment law covered by arbitration include minimum wage, off-the-clock duties, and overtime. Those workers often have a difficult time finding lawyers willing to take cases that must be arbitrated because of concerns the system favors employers.

Despite forced arbitration clamping down on workers’ rights, some recent developments have benefited employees.

In 2022, an amendment to the Federal Arbitration Act became law that excludes allegations of sexual assault or harassment from forced arbitration agreements. Under the Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act of 2021, victims can refuse arbitration and can pursue their claims in court so that companies can’t hide alleged misconduct in private proceedings.

And in 2023, the Federal Trade Commission proposed a new rule that would prohibit employers from imposing noncompete clauses on workers, which would give them options to take jobs with better pay and working conditions, potentially raising wages.

These clauses are already unenforceable in California as well as in two other states, North Dakota and Oklahoma. It’s also against California public policy to fire an employee for refusing to sign an agreement containing a void noncompete provision, and doing so exposes an employer to wrongful termination liability. Moreover, the California Court of Appeal has extended that prohibition to employers that fire or refuse to hire someone because that person has signed an illegal noncompete agreement with another company.

Is your employer violating the law or you suspect they are not playing by the rules? Contact Keller Grover today for a free consultation. With more than 30 years litigating fraud and employment cases, Keller Grover has recovered billions for clients.

The new year will bring higher minimum wages for California workers — as well as the potential for computer software engineers and health care workers to earn more.

Starting Jan. 1, 2024, the California minimum wage will increase from $15.50 an hour to $16 an hour. (Some cities and counties already have higher minimum wages than that; UC Berkeley maintains a chart.)

For comparison, the federal minimum wage is $7.25 an hour, but many states set their standards above that mark.

Also, some California employees — whose salaries previously were above the requirement for them to earn overtime pay — now will be eligible for overtime. On Jan. 1, those who earn salaries of less than $66,560 a year will be eligible for overtime pay.

Computer software employees now will be eligible for overtime if they earn less than $55.58 an hour (up from $53.80) or $115,763.35 a year (up from $112,065.20).

California’s minimum wage law requires an annual review of wage rates based on inflation; the upcoming increases are intended to help keep wages in line with rising costs.

Separately, the state has been facing a health care staffing shortage.  A a new law signed in October sets in motion annual minimum wage increases for certain healthcare workers over the next few years starting in June. On June 1, 2024, the minimum wage for covered health care workers at large health systems will increase to $23 an hour, stair-stepping up until reaching $25 an hour in June 2026. Smaller or rural health care facilities will see slower increases.

Knowledge helps employees make sure their rights are being protected. The minimum wage requirement can’t be waived, even if an employee agrees to it, and the rule applies to minors as well as to adults. Also, employers can’t count tips toward the minimum wage payment.

Any worker who isn’t paid at least the minimum wage can file a claim with the state Labor Commissioner’s Office or file a lawsuit — and workers can include waiting time penalties in their claims, even if they no longer have that job.

It’s also vital to remember that, if an employer retaliates against a worker in any way because they file or threaten to file a claim, the worker can file a discrimination/retaliation complaint or lawsuit.

At Keller Grover, we advocate for workers. With more than 30 years litigating fraud and employment cases, Keller Grover has recovered billions for clients. If you are being mistreated by your employer, contact us today for a free and confidential consultation.

A recent court settlement offers a hopeful view of government remedies for underpaid workers — and should serve as a warning to companies that turn a blind eye to fraud.

The particular case involved public construction projects in Massachusetts, but California has similar laws — and a much bigger budget for these projects, thus more opportunities for violations by contractors — so the situation is a helpful example. The particular points at issue: Construction contractors paying workers significantly below the prevailing wage and making fraudulent reports to the government about those wages. 

In California, the prevailing wage rate refers to the basic hourly wage rate that must be paid on public works projects.  The prevailing wage rate is often significantly higher than the base California minimum wage rate.  The applicable prevailing wage rate will depend on the type of work being performed.

BPI Construction Management Inc. was handling two public construction projects, and one of its subcontractors didn’t pay prevailing wages to workers on those projects — in fact, it paid them less than half of what they were owed. Yet each week, the companies submitted fraudulent payroll forms to the state certifying compliance with the prevailing wage law.

But here’s the key: The court had no patience for BPI’s claim that it didn’t know anything about the fraud — it simply submitted the forms given by its subcontractor. 

Rather, the court said BPI had reckless disregard for the falsity of the records and ignored obvious warning signs.

This marked the first case in which liability for this type of fraud extended up the payment chain, from the subcontractor to the contractor in charge. BPI will pay $926,898.06 for the violations; the subcontractor, Superior Carpentry, will pay $256,539.92 as restitution to the workers and about the same in civil penalties.

It’s also worth noting that the case came about because of a pattern of wage theft complaints. Workers spoke out about their mistreatment, and the government was able to not only investigate but to get restitution for the workers and punish the companies involved.

At Keller Grover, we work with employees and whistleblowers — whatever the situation might be — to achieve fair treatment for workers. With more than 30 years litigating fraud and employment cases, Keller Grover has recovered billions for clients. If you are being mistreated by your employer, contact us today for a free and confidential consultation.

Electric car trailblazer Tesla has found itself in the spotlight, but not for its vehicles — rather, a federal workplace watchdog alleges that Tesla tolerated pervasive mistreatment of Black employees and retaliated against those who complained.

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission recently filed a lawsuit against the automaker, saying that mistreatment of Black employees at Tesla’s Fremont, California manufacturing facilities had persisted at least since 2015. The employees faced harassment in the form of racial abuse, stereotyping, hostility, verbal slurs and threatening graffiti, the EEOC alleges. Anyone who objected was fired, transferred, got a change in job duties, or suffered other negative consequences, it says.

And Tesla isn’t alone. The EEOC has been cracking down on harassment and discrimination at sites of Chipotle, Dollar General, and various other recognizable brands.

Simultaneously, the EEOC is proposing updates to workplace harassment guidance, which protects employees from harassment based on race, color, religion, national origin, disability, age, genetic information, or sex — a category that covers sexual orientation, transgender status and pregnancy. The change would be the first update in nearly 25 years.

The allegations against various high-profile employers serve as a startling reminder that toxic problems linger in America’s workplaces.

Harassment hasn’t abated despite increased awareness in recent years. Between fiscal 2016 and 2022, the EEOC said, more than a third of charges it received included harassment allegations.

Federal and California law prohibit workplace harassment, including sexual harassment, against employees, applicants, interns, volunteers or contractors in protected categories. They also prohibit retaliation against employees who report suspected violations of the law.

If the EEOC’s new Strategic Enforcement Plan is finalized, updates would include protecting more categories of workers, addressing changing technology use, and discuss waivers that are overly broad, releases, non-disclosure agreements, or non-disparagement agreements.

California also has been cracking down on employers who use NDAs to keep employees quiet.

The public has an opportunity to comment on the proposed guidance update until Nov. 1. Although the proposal would not be legally binding, it could be cited in court.

A previous update effort stalled in 2017, but the renewed push indicates a broad desire to protect vulnerable workers.

If you have been mistreated at work, contact Keller Grover for a free and confidential consultation. With our proven track record of advocating for workers, we can help you understand all your options, protections, and best next steps. In more than 25 years litigating fraud and employment cases, Keller Grover has recovered billions for its clients.