Kelly A. Knight is an attorney and mediator based in Los Angeles, CAlifornia. He handles matters throughout California.

It’s been some time since I’ve lasted posted, and a lot has happened in the world of California employment law. I’ll hopefully have some new posts on new case law soon. In the meantime, here’s an update on statutory changes.

A bunch of new laws and changes went into effect on January 1, 2020. Here are just a few highlights:

  • AB 5: adds Labor Code section 2750.3, codifying and clarifying the ABC test set forth in Dynamex Operations West Inc. v. Superior Court, 4 Cal. 5th 903 (2018), for independent-contractor classification. (Blog write-up here.)

  • AB 9: amends Government Code section 12960 to expand the statute of limitations for filing a complaint with the Department of Fair Employment to three years (formerly one year)

  • AB 51: adds Labor Code section 432.6 and Government Code section 12953, prohibiting employers from requiring employees to sign arbitration agreements as a condition of employment.

    • Note: the law is being challenged in Chamber of Commerce v. Becerra, E.D. Cal. no. 2:19-cv-02456-KJM-DB. Recently, the district court granted a preliminary injunction on grounds that the law is likely preempted by the Federal Arbitration Act. That ruling is being appealed to the Ninth Circuit.

  • California minimum wage threshold increased statewide to $12/hour for employers with 25 or fewer employees and $13/hour for employers with 26 or more employees. The corresponding minimum-salary threshold is accordingly increased (for most (but not all) salary tests, this is two times the minimum wage at 40 hours per week).

  • AB 673: enacts Labor Code section 210, allowing, among other things, employees to sue for violations of Labor Code section 204 for receiving wages untimely.

  • AB 749: adds Code of Civil Procedure section 1002.5, prohibiting no-rehire provisions in employment settlements, with certain exceptions.

    • This has been an issue in many mediations, as lawyers try to figure out what to do now that blanket no-rehire provisions are prohibited.

  • SB 188: amends Government Code section 12926 and Education Code section 212.1 to add (both are anti-discrimination laws), among other things, that “traits historically associated with race, including, but not limited to, hair texture and protective hairstyles,” are included within the definition of “race,” and “ ‘[p]rotective hairstyles’ includes, but is not limited to, such hairstyles as braids, locks, and twists.” (Blog write-up here.)

California Supreme Court holds that employees may bring and maintain PAGA claims even when they settle their individual claims or have no individual claims at all.

California Supreme Court holds that an aggrieved PAGA employee may not recover unpaid wages in a Labor Code section 558 PAGA action, resolves appellate split