The California Legislature passed reforms to California’s onerous Private Attorneys General Act (“PAGA”) in 2024, which is good news for California employers. The PAGA reforms revamped the law’s penalty structure and provide employers with an opportunity to remediate possible violations to reduce potential liability for penalties.

Previously, PAGA penalties were set at $100 for each initial violation per pay period and $200 for subsequent violations. Under the new reforms, the default penalty amount is now $100 per pay period, which can be increased or reduced depending on the circumstances of the violations.  

For employers who take “all reasonable steps” to come into compliance with applicable wage-and-hour rules within 60 days after receiving a PAGA notice, penalties are generally capped at $30 per violation. For employers who take “all reasonable steps” before receiving a PAGA notice, penalties are reduced even further to $15. Examples of what employers can do to take “all reasonable steps” to come into compliance include conducting audits of payroll records, taking corrective action to remedy violations, training staff and management on wage-and-hour policies and practices, and implementing legally compliant written policies.

Therefore, it is essential for employers to take immediate action upon receiving a PAGA notice (and even before) to substantially limit their exposure to PAGA liability. Please contact Edgar Legal Group for assistance in navigating this process.   

A new California law will expand parental leave protections under the California Family Rights Act to individuals working for employers who have at least 20 employees.  Existing law only applies to employers with at least 50 employees.

Senate Bill 63 will take effect on January 1, 2018. Under the new law, employers with 20 or more employees must provide employees with up to 12 weeks of parental leave to bond with a new child within one year of the child’s birth, adoption, or foster care placement. In order to be eligible for the law’s protection, an employee must have more than 12 months of service with the employer, have at least 1,250 hours of service with the employer during the previous 12-month period, and work at a location in which the employer employs at least 20 employees within 75 miles.

Governor Jerry Brown recently signed into law a new provision of the California Labor Code that will restrict employers from asking about and relying upon salary history information from job applicants.

The new law will go into effect on January 1, 2018.

The law will prohibit employers from relying on salary history information of a job applicant as a factor in determining whether to offer employment to the applicant or what salary to offer.

The law will also prohibit employers from seeking, orally or in writing, personally or through an agent, salary history information about an applicant (including compensation and benefits).

Upon request, employers will also have to provide the pay scale for a position to an applicant.

The new law includes an important exception. If an applicant voluntarily and without prompting discloses salary history information to a prospective employer, the employer may consider or rely on that information in determining the salary for that applicant. However, even when information is voluntarily disclosed, employers may not use prior salary information, by itself, to justify any disparity in compensation, consistent with California’s Fair Pay Act.

California employers should ensure that their recruiting staff, both internal and external, is educated on these new restrictions.

California law requires employers to guarantee a day of rest for each workweek for its employees. Specifically, the California Labor Code prohibits an employer for “causing” its employees to work “more than six days in seven,” but this rule does not apply “when the total hours of employment do not exceed 30 hours in any week or six hours in any one day thereof.”

Seems clear enough, but some ambiguities crop up when these rules are put into practice. For instance, does the day of rest apply to a workweek, or does it apply on a rolling basis to any seven day period? Also, does the exemption apply so long as an employee works six hours or less on at least one day of the week, or does it only apply when the employee works no more than six hours on each and every day of that week? Finally, what does it mean for an employer to “cause” an employee to work?

These were the questions posed to the California Supreme Court in the recent case of Mendoza v. Nordstrom, Inc.

The court answered the questions as follows:

• The day of rest guarantee applies to workweeks, and not to any consecutive seven-day period of work.
• The exemption for employees working shifts of six hours applies only to those employees who never exceed six hours of work on any day of the workweek. Therefore, if on any one day an employee works more than six hours, a day of rest must be provided during that workweek.
• To “cause” an employee to go without a day of rest means that the employer induces the employee for forgo rest to which that employee is entitled. Based on that definition, an employer is not forbidden from permitting or allowing an employee to independent choose not to take a day of rest, provided that the employee has been fully apprised of his or her entitlement to rest.

Employers should review their policies and processes to ensure that employee schedules are implemented in accordance with these rules.

The California Fair Employment and Housing Council has issued new regulations which further limit employers’ ability to consider criminal history when making employment decisions, such as hiring, promotion, training, discipline, layoff, or termination.

The new regulations will take effect on July 1, 2017.

The regulations prohibit an employer from considering criminal history in employment decisions if doing so will result in an adverse impact on individuals within a protected class , such as race, national origin, or religion.

In addition, the regulations prohibit employers from considering non-felony convictions for possession of marijuana if the conviction is more than two years old.

The regulations will also require an employer to give notice to an applicant or employee before taking adverse action against the person based on their criminal history. Specifically, the employer must give notice of the disqualifying conviction and provide a reasonable opportunity to present evidence that the conviction information is factually inaccurate. It is important to note, however, that this notice is only required when the criminal information is obtained from a third party source, such as a background report or based on the employer’s own research.

Employers should therefore review their policies and procedures to ensure compliance with these new regulations, as well as any local “Ban the Box” ordinances (such as in Los Angeles and San Francisco) and the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act.