As discussed in our recent article, the introduction of SB 399 in California (approved and added as California Labor Code section 1137) sparked significant discussion and concern among California employers with union employees. The legislation, which became effective January 1, 2025, restricts so-called “captive audience meetings” by prohibiting employers from discharging or disciplining employees for refusing to attend mandatory employer-sponsored meetings. Many employers believe the law unnecessarily restrains their ability to communicate effectively and transparently with employees about important issues.
Continue Reading Mandatory Captive Rules in Limbo for California Employers – 2 Federal Lawsuits Challenge SB 399 and Looming Issue Before the NLRB

Arzate v. Ace American Insurance Company, — Cal. Rptr. 3d — (2025) began as a familiar case: plaintiffs signed arbitration agreements (“Agreement”) with their employer that contained a class action waiver. But when a dispute arose, plaintiffs disregarded their Agreements and filed a class action lawsuit. The defendant filed a motion to compel arbitration. The trial court granted the motion, enforced the class action waiver, and stayed the action pending arbitration.
Continue Reading Plaintiffs, Not Defendants, Must Initiate Arbitration

On February 14, 2025, the Acting General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”) William B. Cowen issued his first General Counsel Memorandum (“GC Memo”) GC 25-05 rescinding nearly all of the Biden administration General Counsel’s substantive prosecutorial guidance memos, which furthered a pro-union and pro-employee agenda. While these memoranda do not have the weight of law or regulation, they do set out the agency’s priorities and key interpretations of the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA”).
Continue Reading Acting General Counsel of NLRB Issues First GC Memorandum, Rescinding Controversial Pro-Labor Memoranda

On February 3, 2025, the California First District Court of Appeal held that a party to an arbitration agreement cannot rely on a choice-of-law provision to wire around the federal Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act of 2021 (the “EFAA”). The case, Casey v. Superior Court, clarifies that a party cannot circumvent the EFAA and compel a dispute to arbitration by using a pre-litigation choice-of-law provision.
Continue Reading Choice-of-Law Provisions Cannot Circumvent Ending Forced Arbitration Act, Court of Appeal Rules

On January 7, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reversed and remanded a district court’s dismissal of a plaintiff’s Title VII religious bias suit—holding the case was sufficient to survive a motion to dismiss at the pleading stage. The matter, Barnett v. Inova Health Care Services, provides key insights and reminders for employers attempting to balance workplace policies with employees’ religious beliefs.
Continue Reading Vax On: Fourth Circuit Reinstates Plaintiff’s Religious Bias Suit in COVID Vaccine Mandate Case

On February 5, 2025, Attorney General Pam Bondi disseminated an internal memo within the Department of Justice (DOJ). The memo, Ending Illegal DEI and DEIA Discrimination and Preferences, explained that the DOJ’s Civil Rights Division will “investigate, eliminate, and penalize illegal DEI and DEIA preferences, mandates, policies, programs, and activities in the private sector and in educational institutions that receive federal funds.”…
Continue Reading Attorney General Pam Bondi’s Ending Illegal DEI and DEIA Discrimination and Preferences Memo

On January 20, 2025, President Trump issued an Executive Order titled, “Defending Women From Gender Ideology Extremism And Restoring Biological Truth To The Federal Government” (the “EO”). The EO declares that “[i]t is the policy of the United States to recognize two sexes, male and female.” The EO explicitly rejects “gender ideology,” which, according to the EO, includes the notion “that males can identify as and thus become women and vice versa” and “it is possible for a person to be born in the wrong sexed body.”…
Continue Reading Analyzing President Trump’s “Defending Women From Gender Ideology Extremism And Restoring Biological Truth To The Federal Government” Executive Order

From smart watches to exoskeletons, wearable technologies are quickly changing the landscape of the American workplace. Several states and administrative agencies have responded to this shift by enacting new laws and issuing regulatory guidance concerning the use of such technologies. The latest of these responses includes a fact sheet issued by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) titled “Wearables in the Workplace: Using Wearable Technologies Under Federal Employment Discrimination Laws.” The fact sheet provides guidance on how employers can use wearable technologies while maintaining compliance with various federal employment laws. More broadly, the fact sheet signals growing concern over…
Continue Reading Wearable Technologies and Employment Risks – EEOC Issues New Guidance

With the Trump Administration’s renewed focus on immigration, many companies are asking what to expect, and how to respond to a potential raid on their facilities by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”). As enforcement activities continue to unfold, employers should take proactive steps to prepare for possible ICE visits or audits.
Continue Reading ICE Raids in the Workplace – Preparation and Response

On January 21, 2025, President Trump signed an Executive Order titled “Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity.” This Executive Order is a major pivot in federal policy regarding affirmative action and diversity initiatives, which have been in place for decades, particularly within federal contracting. The implications of this Executive Order are far-reaching, affecting both federal contractors and private employers across the United States.
Continue Reading Analyzing President Trump’s Latest Executive Order Titled “Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity”

On January 1, 2025, the statewide minimum wage increased to $16.50 per hour. With the change in the statewide minimum wage, the minimum exempt salary for California employees rose from $66,560 to $68,640 per year.
Continue Reading California Minimum Wage Increases

California’s Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA)[1] allows “aggrieved employees” to sue their employers for Labor Code violations to collect civil penalties “on behalf of himself or herself and other current or former employees.” The issue of how to resolve PAGA claims where the employee and employer are subject to a binding arbitration agreement has been hotly contested over the last several years, as reported many times in this blog [see here, here, and here].
Continue Reading PAGA Plaintiffs Cannot Avoid Arbitration by Bringing a “Headless PAGA Lawsuit”

As Los Angeles (the “City”) grapples with the impacts of the devastating wildfires, employers are facing critical decisions about protecting their workforce while maintaining operations. While Cal/OSHA recently urged employers to protect workers from unhealthy air in Los Angeles County, this article will provide further insight on a variety of the complex legal obligations California employers must navigate during wildfire and other natural disaster emergencies.
Continue Reading Navigating Employer Obligations During California’s Wildfire Disasters