EmploymentUpdates and News

MAY 2006

LEGISLATIVE/REGULATORY UPDATE


California Legislative Update

In this month’s Employment Law Update, we are providing updates on the status of certain bills that, if passed, would affect the workplace.

AB1912 – This bill would prohibit an employer from discharging an employee on the basis that the employee legally stores a firearm in his or her vehicle at the work site. It had been pending in the Committee on Labor & Employment, but the bill’s author recently cancelled the hearing on the bill.

AB2217 – This bill would allow the use of an alternative work week schedule by individual non-exempt employees, of up to ten hours per day within a 40-hour work week. The employee would submit a written request for such a schedule to the employer, which would have to approve. The employer could not encourage or otherwise solicit an employee to submit a request for an alternative schedule. Workers covered by a valid collective bargaining agreement would be exempt from the law. The bill did not pass out of the Committee on Labor & Employment, but reconsideration has been granted. (A companion bill, Senate Bill 1254, failed to pass out of the Senate Committee on Labor & Industrial Relations.)

AB2385 – Under Labor Code section 2802, an employer must indemnify an employee for all “necessary expenditures or losses” that are incurred as a direct consequence of the discharge of duties. This Assembly bill would add litigation costs to the costs included by the term “necessary expenditures or losses,” thus making specific the ability of the employee to recover attorneys’ fees if he or she must take legal action to enforce the indemnification rights under section 2802. The bill was amended in the Judiciary Committee, passed as amended, and then referred to the Appropriations Committee.

AB2371 – This bill would invalidate arbitration agreements between employers and employees that relate to employment practices that are covered by the Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”) that are required as a condition of hiring. It would be an unlawful employment practice for an employer to require an employee to waive any rights or procedures under the FEHA. The bill passed out of the Committee on the Judiciary, and is now in the Committee on Appropriations.

 

NEXT: Sexual Banter in Workplace Does Not Always Support a Harassment Claim

 

 

Inside:
California Legislative Update
Sexual Banter in Workplace Does Not Always Support a Harassment Claim
IWC Did Not Have Authority to Issue Order Exempting Employer from Providing Second Meal Break Based on Collective Bargaining Agreement
Primary Employer Was Properly Cited by Cal-OSHA for Failing to Provide for Safety of Employee Leased to Secondary Employer
Ninth Circuit Upholds Appearance and Grooming Standards as Nondiscriminatory
Employer Is Liable for Injuries Resulting from Employee’s Implied Permissive Use of Company Car
Valid Forum Selection and Choice of Law Provisions in Employment Agreement Can Require Employee to Litigate FEHA Claims in Other State

 

 


Home | About | News | Practice Areas | Profiles | Careers | Clients | Locations | Privacy | Contact

Copyright 1998-2008 KLINEDINST PC. All rights reserved.