The California Supreme Court recently upheld, for the first time, unilateral state reductions to pension calculations without a corresponding off-set for employees, despite the “California Rule.
As the pandemic has progressed, employers have been scrambling to keep up with the ever-evolving state and federal guidance and laws concerning COVID-19.
On July 1, 2020, new regulations went into effect regarding Uniform Complaint Procedures (UCP) found at Title 5 of the California Code of Regulations, sections 4600 through 4670.
Recently enacted Assembly Bill (AB) 1867 created new Labor Code sections 248 and 248.1 which require employers to provide additional COVID-19 paid sick leave (CPSL) to food service workers, health care providers, and emergency responders. AB 1867 went into effect immediately upon being signed on September 9, 2020.
On September 17, 2020, California Governor Gavin Newsom signed Senate Bill (SB) 1383, a bill which expands the reach and application of the California Family Rights Act (CFRA), by applying it to employers with five or more employees, by expanding the list of family members with serious health conditions that an employee may take leave to care for, and by eliminating other limitations for use.
May a member of an elected board, council, or other body subject to the Brown Act comment on, “retweet” or “like” a social media post from another member without risking a Brown Act violation?
As school districts and county offices of education across California prepared to open their schools in a virtual distance learning format, electronic recording of remote instruction sessions became a topic of interest in labor negotiations.
With two separate recently passed laws, the California Legislature has altered the procedures surrounding school district disposition of surplus property. Senate Bill 98 (SB 98), an education omnibus budget trailer bill signed into law on June 29, 2020, allows for more flexible use of the proceeds of a sale of surplus property.
In a recent ruling, a California Appellate Court determined that a taxpayer’s reverse validation action alleging conflicts of interest in lease-leaseback agreements became moot upon completion of the project.