Photo of Garrett Parks

Garrett Parks

Subscribe to Garrett Parks's Posts
Contact:Read more about Garrett Parks

As the calendar turns to April 1, employers have a firm grasp of their hiring budgets to prepare for what is expected to be a sizzling summer season. Many employers, large and small, will need to ramp up hiring (e.g., hotels and hospitality, restaurants, travel, recreation) to have the extra help in place to support businesses that see a boom during the summer months.

Since spring is typically when everyone “gets the house in order,” below are some reminders and tips for employers to ensure that their work to staff up happens smoothly:Continue Reading Spring into action: Key hiring and onboarding tips for a successful summer season

On September 27, 2024, California Governor Gavin Newsom signed Senate Bill (SB) 1137 into law, clarifying that discrimination can happen based on an intersection or combination of protected characteristics. Specifically, SB 1137 amended the Unruh Civil Rights Act, the Education Code, and the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) to extend protection against discrimination by including the concept of “intersectionality”.

Back in February 2024, California State Senator Lola Smallwood-Cuevas introduced SB 1137, which aimed to make California the first state to explicitly recognize “intersectionality” in anti-discrimination laws. Smallwood-Cuevas notes in her April 15, 2024, press release that “[d]iscrimination transcends singular dimensions”, and that SB 1137 “is common-sense reform that addresses the intersectionality of discrimination cases, providing greater protections for Californians, especially those from our most marginalized communities of color.”Continue Reading California adopts intersectionality into anti-discrimination laws

On July 25, 2024, the California Supreme Court ruled in the case of Castellanos v. State of California that Proposition 22, also known as App-Based Drivers as Contractors and Labor Policies Initiative, is constitutional. The statewide ballot measure from 2020 exempts certain app-based drivers from California’s independent contractor classification law. This decision will significantly impact ongoing gig economy litigation as well as potential future litigation.

In 2021, drivers for services including Uber Technologies Inc., Lyft Inc. and DoorDash Inc., joined with the Service Employees International Union and its California chapter to challenge Proposition 22. The drivers and union claimed that the voter-approved ballot measure passed in November 2020 must be struck down because it infringed on the California legislature’s power to set workers’ compensation laws. During the May 2024 oral arguments in San Francisco, the justices appeared skeptical of the drivers’ position, expressing concerns about the chilling effect on future ballot initiatives and questioning why the legislature simply could not create new workers’ compensation laws in response. The court concluded that Article XIV, section 4 of the California Constitution does not limit the ability of California voters to enact laws through the initiative process that touch on workers’ compensation, rendering Prop 22 constitutional.Continue Reading California Supreme Court upholds Prop 22: California gig drivers to remain contractors

Governor Gavin Newsom signed S.B. 525 into law adding new minimum wage requirements to Sections 1182.14 and 1182.15 of the California Labor Code. These new sections establish five comprehensive minimum wage schedules for “covered health care employees”, which includes contracted and subcontracted employees. Effective June 1, 2024, “covered health care facilities” will be required to implement the applicable minimum wage schedule, depending on the nature of the employer, as set forth by the law. In general, the law preempts any local ordinances setting wages for healthcare workers. To determine the law’s applicability, health care providers across California must consider (1) whether they meet the definition of a “covered health care facility” and, if so, (2) who within their workforce meets the definition of a “covered health care employee”.Continue Reading California enacts increase in the minimum wage for covered health care employees

The worldwide COVID-19 pandemic has had, and will continue to have, a substantial impact on the U.S. workplace. We have prepared a series of FAQs compiled based on some of the more common questions that clients with California-based employees have posed to us over roughly the past six weeks.

These FAQs are general and high-level…

On March 29, 2019, a California Court of Appeal held that a trial court did not retain jurisdiction under Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6 to enforce a settlement agreement after dismissal of the underlying lawsuit because the parties did not comply with the strict requirements of section 664.6. At first blush, the decision in Mesa RHF Partners, L.P. v. City of Los Angeles (Mesa) may not seem significant; however, the court’s holding now requires litigants and their counsel to consider modifying the procedures they typically use to settle and dismiss cases, at least to the extent they want the trial court to retain jurisdiction to later enforce their settlement agreements if that becomes necessary.

Section 664.6 allows for parties to file a stipulation to allow a trial court to retain jurisdiction over a dismissed case to enforce a settlement agreement “in a writing signed by the parties.” In Mesa, the parties resolved a dispute and indicated in their settlement agreement that “[t]he Court shall retain jurisdiction pursuant to [section 664.6] to enforce the terms of the Settlement Agreement.” As is often done, counsel for the plaintiffs then signed and filed a request for dismissal on a printed court form. Counsel even went so far as to insert language on the form that stated the trial court would retain jurisdiction to enforce the settlement under section 664.6.Continue Reading California Court of Appeal cracks down on non-compliant requests for trial courts to retain jurisdiction to enforce settlement agreements

On January 31, 2019, the three-member National Mediation Board (NMB), which oversees labor relations for the airline and railroad industries, published a proposed rule-making to simplify the process for workers covered by the Railway Labor Act (RLA) to decertify the unions representing them.

Currently, RLA-represented employees seeking to decertify a union must identify an individual willing to be personally named and represent the bargaining unit. After more than 50 percent of the unit’s members sign an authorization card that clearly states their desire to no longer be represented by the union, the named person is authorized to apply to the NMB to hold a representation election. Then, the NMB will hold an election with options to vote for (1) the current union representation, (2) the named individual, (3) a write-in candidate, or (4) “no union.” To decertify the incumbent union, the majority vote must be for either “no union” or the named individual – who would then disclaim interest in representing the bargaining unit.Continue Reading National Mediation Board proposes simplifying decertification under the Railway Labor Act

San Francisco’s Office of Labor Standards Enforcement (OLSE) continues to raise the cost of doing business at the foot of the Golden Gate by requiring employers to provide some of the most generous benefits to employees in the United States. The OLSE has amended certain of its rules regarding employer obligations, and will begin enforcing these changes (adopted by San Francisco voters and the City’s Board of Supervisors) as of January 1, 2019. Below are some of the highlights employers should consider as they make their way in the new year:

  • Health Care Security Ordinance (HCSO) increases the minimum dollar amount employers must spend on health care on behalf of all covered employees (those who have been employed for more than 90 days and who regularly work at least eight hours per week in the City of San Francisco). As of 2019, San Francisco employers with 20–99 employees worldwide must spend $1.95 per hour, and those with 100 or more employees worldwide must spend $2.93 per hour. Businesses with less than 20 employees remain exempt from the HCSO.

The 2019 “Exemption Threshold” (minimum amount for managerial, supervisory, and confidential employees to be exempt from the HCSO) has increased to $48.46 per hour or $100,796 per year.Continue Reading San Francisco increases costs and requirements for employers in 2019