Workers are encouraged to assert their legal rights without facing unlawful retaliation from their employers. Retaliation occurs when an employee faces an adverse employment action because he or she has opposed an unlawful employment practice. In practice, retaliation includes everything from being terminated for reporting sex discrimination to being denied a promotion for previously filing a sexual harassment claim. The biggest surprise to employers is when they make legitimate, non-retaliatory adverse employment decisions and are subsequently hit with a retaliation claim merely becau ..read more

For the vast majority of my career in employment law, when I learned that an employer had an arbitration agreement with an employee who had just sued, I danced the jig. So long as the arbitration agreement did not contain numerous unconscionable terms, courts generally enforce them. Nothing makes judges happier than granting a motion to compel arbitration sending the case off their docket.   Since arbitrating a hard-fought employment dispute at the beginning of COVID, where my clients prevailed on all counts, including a cross-complaint that permitted them to recover from the empl ..read more

The California Court of Appeals in Lopez v. La Casa las Madres held that both the Pregnancy Disability Leave (“PDL”) law and Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”) require that a plaintiff prove that the plaintiff had a condition related to pregnancy, and with reasonable accommodation, the plaintiff could have performed the job. From experienced employment lawyer Lisa Sherman, here’s what California employers need to know about the decision. Lopez v. La Casa las Madres Case in California Plaintiff Gabriela Lopez worked for La Casa de las Madres (La Casa) at various times between 200 ..read more

Just last week, I was retained by a company who retained an external HR consultant to conduct workplace investigations. Putting aside the fact that the HR consultant had not handled the various employment issues correctly, I had the unfortunate task of informing the employer that the HR’s consultant is not legally permitted to conduct such investigations. Below, I’ll discuss workplace investigations in California and who is allowed to conduct them. If you’re looking for help with an employment issue or conducting a workplace investigation at your company, feel free to contact my office. I h ..read more

After seasoned labor and employment attorneys John Barber and Jeffrey Ranen left 1600 lawyer Lewis Brisbois, taking nearly 140 attorneys with them in May 2023, Lewis Brisbois got the last laugh by releasing emails between Barber and Ranen over the last decade consisting of racist, anti-Semitic, homophobic, and highly misogynistic comments about others with whom they worked contrary to the advice they give their own clients. From experienced California employment attorney Lisa Sherman, here’s what to know about what happened with these attorneys. Employment Attorneys Used Company Emails ..read more

On September 30, 2023, Governor Gavin Newsom signed SB 553 into law, establishing a new written Workplace Violence Prevention Plan (“WVPP”) requirement for most California employers. The WVPP requirement becomes effective on July 1, 2024 and will apply to California employers across all industries. In connection with maintaining and implementing the WVPP, employers also must train employees on workplace violence hazards, maintain a violent incident log and other workplace violence-related records, and conduct periodic reviews of the WVPP. The law’s extensive requirements, which are detailed ..read more

In its June 29, 2023 unanimous decision in Groff v. DeJoy, the United States Supreme Court upended nearly 50 years of precedent by “clarifying” the undue hardship defense in religious accommodation claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended. In doing so, the Supreme Court effectively dismissed the “de minimis” framework and the precedent set in Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Hardison, 432 U.S. 63 (1977), and created a new, and much higher, standard. The heightened standard requires employers assessing religious accommodations requests to deny such requests only if the ..read more

The California Court of Appeals in Ortiz v. Nellson Nutraceutical, Calif. Ct. App., No. G061411 (Aug. 23, 2023), recently held that where an arbitration agreement contained signature blocks for both the employee and the employer’s signatures, but the employer never signed it, the employer could not enforce the agreement. From experienced California employment attorney Lisa Sherman, here’s what California employers need to know about this ruling. Ortiz v. Nellson Nutraceutical In this case, an employer drafted an agreement to arbitrate and presented it to an employee who signed it and ..read more

Employers who require employees to sign noncompetition agreements or other restrictive covenants or seek to enforce the agreements — even when employees enter into the agreements outside California in a state where the restrictions are lawful — risk liability under a new California law that will become effective January 1, 2024. Senate Bill 699, signed by Governor Newsom, also permits employees and former employees who sue to invalidate such restrictions to recover damage awards and attorney’s fees against the employer. From experienced California employment lawyer Lisa Sherman, here’s what ..read more

– Unless Doing So Would “Result in Substantial Increased Costs in Relation to Conduct of Business” The question of religious beliefs in a place of business has been in debate for some time, and a recent case that went before the United States Supreme Court examined that very issue. From California employment attorney Lisa Sherman, here are the details of the case and what it could mean for California employers going forward. The Case In Groff v. DeJoy, 143 S.Ct. 2279 (2023), Plaintiff, United States Postal Service (“USPS”) “Rural Carrier Associate” Gerald Groff, refused to work on Sundays, bec ..read more