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 & Employment Law Blog
Up-to-date Information on Labor & Employment Law
Latest from Labor & Employment Law Blog
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. …
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…
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”…
Delay In California’s Minimum Wage Increase for Health Care Workers
As we previously reported here, nearly all health care facilities in California will soon be required to increase the minimum wage paid to health care workers, ranging anywhere from $18 per hour up to $23 per hour depending on the type of health care facility. The increased health care minimum wage was set to…
Intervening Authority: California Supreme Court Curbs the Authority of PAGA Litigants to Intervene in Overlapping PAGA Actions
On August 1, 2024, the California Supreme Court issued a decision in Turrieta v. Lyft that substantially narrows the authority of PAGA litigants to intervene in overlapping PAGA actions. The Supreme Court’s ruling confirms that the courts and the Labor & Workforce Development Agency (“LWDA”) – and not competing PAGA litigants – have primary responsibility for…
Texas Judge Enjoins NLRB From Proceeding Against SpaceX, Casting Further Doubt on NLRB’s Constitutionality
A federal judge in Texas recently cast new doubt on the National Labor Relations Board’s (NLRB) ability to oversee labor disputes, agreeing with SpaceX that the agency’s Board Members and Administrative Law Judges (ALJs) are likely serving unconstitutionally.…
California’s New Heat Illness Prevention Standard for Indoor Workplaces Is Now Effective
California’s new “Heat Illness Prevention in Indoor Places of Employment” standard is now in effect as of July 23, 2024. The new regulation applies to most California workplaces where the indoor temperature reaches 82°F or higher (e.g., warehouses, distribution centers, manufacturing plants, and restaurants). The standard requires those employers to implement a written indoor heat illness…
The NLRB Must Apply Its Prior Standard for Protected Employee Outbursts and Abusive Speech
On July 9, 2024, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit told the National Labor Relations Board’s to reconsider the standard for whether abusive or inappropriate speech is protected under Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act. In so doing, the Fifth Circuit vacated the National Labor Relations Board’s decision in…
Ninth Circuit Finds Shipping Warehouse Employee Qualified as Exempt “Transportation Worker” Under the Federal Arbitration Act
On March 12, 2024, the Ninth Circuit published a decision in Ortiz v. Randstad Inhouse Services, LLC, holding that the Plaintiff Adan Ortiz (“Plaintiff”) qualified as a “transportation worker” under the Federal Arbitration Act, and was thus exempted from mandatory arbitration under the FAA. The district court rejected the employer’s arguments that Plaintiff was bound…