On September 30, 2024, Governor Gavin Newsom signed into law SB 399. Starting January 1, employers are officially banned from holding captive audience meetings—mandatory employer-sponsored meetings that discuss religious or political matters—which are a common and accepted defense against union organizing.Continue Reading Mandatory Captive Audience Meetings Are Banned in California in 2025
Comment Period Now Open for OSHA’s Proposed National Heat Injury and Illness Prevention Standard
On the heels of California’s new indoor heat illness prevention standard becoming effective, the federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration (“OSHA”) announced a proposed national heat and injury illness prevention standard (“Proposed Rule”). The Proposed Rule covers indoor and outdoor workplaces where the heat index reaches 80°F or higher. Employers who wish to submit comments on the Proposed Rule have until December 30, 2024 to do so. Continue Reading Comment Period Now Open for OSHA’s Proposed National Heat Injury and Illness Prevention Standard
Massachusetts Joins the Pay Transparency Game and Ups the Ante with New Reporting Requirements
On July 31, 2024, Massachusetts Governor Maura Healey signed into law a bill that makes Massachusetts the 11th state to mandate pay transparency, joining California, Colorado, Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Nevada, New York, Rhode Island, and Washington.Continue Reading Massachusetts Joins the Pay Transparency Game and Ups the Ante with New Reporting Requirements
Safety First for Retailers — New York Boosts Retail Safety with Mandatory Workplace Violence Prevention Plans, Annual Training Requirements and Panic Buttons
In an effort to mitigate the risk of violence at work, New York Governor Kathy Hochul signed into law the New York Retail Worker Safety Act (RWSA) on September 5, 2024. The law introduces stringent workplace violence prevention measures for retail employers, including the establishment of a workplace violence prevention plan, training program, and the installation of a panic button.Continue Reading Safety First for Retailers — New York Boosts Retail Safety with Mandatory Workplace Violence Prevention Plans, Annual Training Requirements and Panic Buttons
U.S. Federal Antitrust Agencies Announce Cooperation Initiative with Labor Agencies in Merger Review
Yesterday, August 28th, the Federal Trade Commission (the “FTC”) and the Department of Justice Antitrust Division (the “DOJ”) (the “Antitrust Agencies”), together with the Department of Labor (the “DOL”) and National Labor Relations Board (the “NLRB”), signed a new agreement (the Memorandum of Understanding or “MOU”) that seeks to enhance the ability of the FTC and DOJ to investigate the impact of mergers and acquisitions on labor markets.Continue Reading U.S. Federal Antitrust Agencies Announce Cooperation Initiative with Labor Agencies in Merger Review
California Court of Appeal Rules That Partial Sale of Business Can Bind Seller-Owner to a Noncompetition Agreement
In Samuelian v. Life Generations Healthcare, LLC, — Cal. App. 5th —, 2024 WL 3878448 (Cal. App. Aug. 20, 2024), the California Court of Appeal answered two long outstanding questions of California law concerning the enforceability of noncompetition agreements in the context of the sale of a business:Continue Reading California Court of Appeal Rules That Partial Sale of Business Can Bind Seller-Owner to a Noncompetition Agreement
NLRB Will No Longer Approve Employer Proposed Consent Orders
As we have previously reported, from the time President Biden took office, the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB” or the “Board”) began systematically reversing Trump-era policy, and shifting toward pro-union and pro-employee policies. On August 22, 2024, the Board continued that push. This time taking steps to significantly impede the ability of employers to avoid unfair labor practice (“ULP”) charges without resorting to litigation. Continue Reading NLRB Will No Longer Approve Employer Proposed Consent Orders
California Assembly Committee Revives State’s Captive Audience Meeting Ban
On August 15, 2024, the Appropriations Committee of the California State Assembly passed SB 399 by a vote of 10–3. The bill had passed the Senate in 2023 and has been with the Assembly since, waiting for action and a vote. Continue Reading California Assembly Committee Revives State’s Captive Audience Meeting Ban
Final Word on Final Rule? Texas District Court Eviscerates FTC’s Non-Compete Ban
On July 3, 2024, Judge Ada Brown of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas entered a limited, preliminary injunction barring the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) from enforcing its controversial Final Rule (“Rule”) which purports to ban almost all non-compete agreements. Importantly, Judge Brown’s preliminary order only enjoined enforcement of the Final Rule against the named plaintiffs who opposed it. On August 20, 2024 – just two weeks before the Rule’s effective date – Judge Brown greatly expanded the scope of her initial ruling by granting summary judgment for the plaintiffs and ordering the Rule be completely “set aside” and “not be enforced or otherwise take effect on September 4, 2024[.]” Judge Brown’s order may be the fatal blow for the Rule, and should end a months-long saga of uncertainty for employers.Continue Reading Final Word on Final Rule? Texas District Court Eviscerates FTC’s Non-Compete Ban
The NLRB Implements Its Fair Choice – Employee Voice Final Rule – Effective September 30, 2024
On July 26, 2024, the National Labor Relations Board (“Board”) issued its Fair Choice – Employee Voice Final Rule (“Final Rule”), which rescinds a trio of April 2020 amendments to the Board’s Rules and Regulations[1] affecting the Board’s processing of petitions that ultimately make it easier for unions to maintain recognition and stifles employee choice in whether to be represented by a union. With the final rule, the Board once again revives many pre-2020 Board policies. Continue Reading The NLRB Implements Its Fair Choice – Employee Voice Final Rule – Effective September 30, 2024
You Are Sponsoring a Foreign National Employee for Permanent Residency, Can You Clawback Some of the Fees?
Companies usually hire a foreign national who requires visa sponsorship because they cannot find a U.S. worker with those skill sets, which is frequently in the STEM fields. However, visa sponsorship comes with significant costs to the employer. Employers may be able to recover a portion of the immigration sponsorship fees by implementing what are called “clawback” provisions into their employment agreements. Clawback provisions are terms in the employment agreements that, in the event of a resignation by the employee before a certain date, require the employee to reimburse the employer for a portion of the costs or fees associated with his or her visa sponsorship.Continue Reading You Are Sponsoring a Foreign National Employee for Permanent Residency, Can You Clawback Some of the Fees?