Duggan McHugh Law Corporation Duggan McHugh Law Corporation 2026-05-27T08:45:47Z https://www.dugganmchugh.com/feed/atom/ WordPress /wp-content/uploads/sites/1504264/2021/04/cropped-favicon-32x32.jpg On Behalf of Duggan McHugh Law Corporation <![CDATA[New California Employment Laws 2026]]> https://www.dugganmchugh.com/?p=52549 2025-11-27T05:56:31Z 2025-11-27T05:52:54Z Minimum Wage Effective January 1, 2026, California’s minimum wage will increase to $16.90 per hour. Minimum annual salaries for exempt employees (i.e., professional, administrative, executive) will increase to $70,304. Local city and county ordinances may require a higher minimum wage than the state. These local higher rates only apply to hourly employees, not exempt employees. Different minimum wage laws apply to certain workers in health care (ranging from $18.63-$23/hour) and fast-food chains ($20/hour).

Notices to Employees

Senate Bill 294: “The Workplace Know Your Rights Act” The Workplace Know Your Rights Act (SB 294) requires employers to provide employees a standalone written notice by February 1, 2026, and annually thereafter, about certain workplace rights, including information on specific constitutional, employment, and labor rights as well as unfair immigration practices and interaction with law enforcement agencies. The California Labor Commissioner will issue a model notice template by January 1, 2026. The new law also requires employers to notify an employee’s designated emergency contact if the employee is arrested or detained at work, or during work hours if the employer had actual knowledge of the event. Employees have until March 30, 2026 to designate an emergency contact. Compliance records must be kept for three years. Senate Bill 446: 30-Day Window to Provide Data Breach Notifications SB 446 narrows the State’s data-breach notification rules by requiring that any business or entity conducting business in California and owning or licensing computerized data with personal information must notify affected California residents within 30 calendar days of discovering or being notified of a breach of security. If the breach impacts more than 500 California residents, the entity must also submit a sample copy of the consumer notification to the California Attorney General’s office within 15 calendar days of notifying consumers. The bill allows for delays only for legitimate law enforcement needs or to determine the scope of the breach and restore system integrity.

Recordkeeping Requirements

Senate Bill 513: Expansion of Personnel File Inspection Requirements Under California Labor Code section 1198.5 employees are required to make available for inspection personnel records relating to an employee’s performance or grievance. SB 513 amends this requirement to include employees’ training and education records. “Education and training records” include the following: Name of the employee Name of the provided training Duration and date of the training Core competencies, including skills in equipment or software, of the training Resulting certification or qualification Section 1198.5 makes it a crime for an employer to violate these requirements. Senate Bill 464: Mandatory Penalties for Pay Data Reporting Failures Under current law, private employers with 100 or more employees, or that engage labor contractors with 100 or more employees, must file an annual Pay Data Report with the California Civil Rights Department (CRD) no later than the second Wednesday in May each year for the prior calendar year. Under SB 464, beginning January 1, 2026, courts will be required to impose civil penalties (rather than only permitted) against an employer that fails to file the report if requested to do so by the CRD. Employers will be required to collect and store any demographic information separately from the employee’s personnel records. Beginning on January 1, 2027, the number of job categories that the employer must report will increase from 10 to 23. Starting with reports due in May 2025, public employers with 100 or more employees will become subject to equivalent pay reporting obligations.

Discrimination, Harassment & Retaliation

Senate Bill 303: Bias Mitigation Training This bill creates Government Code section 12940.2 to clarify that an employee’s assessment, testing, admission, or acknowledgment of their own personal bias, if made in good faith during or as part of bias-mitigation training, cannot be used against the employer as proof of unlawful discrimination under the Fair Employment and Housing Act. The purpose of this new law is to encourage employers to continue offering implicit and unconscious bias training without fearing employee participants may later claim their participation amounted to discriminatory treatment. Assembly Bill 250: Revival of Statute of Limitations on Sexual Assault Claims AB 250 amends Code of Civil Procedure section 340.16 to revive specific sexual-assault civil actions by reviving claims that were otherwise timely barred by the statute of limitations. To revive a claim, a plaintiff must demonstrate that one or more entities engaged in a cover up – defined as a “concerted effort to hide evidence relating to a sexual assault that incentivizes individuals to remain silent.”

FEHA Regulations Amened Regarding the Use of AI in Employment

Effective October 1, 2025, the California Civil Rights Department finalized amendments on using artificial intelligence (AI) and automated decision systems (ADS) in the workplace. Under the revised regulations, it is unlawful for an employer to use ADS in a manner that discriminates against applicants or employees. The regulations clarify the application of existing anti-discrimination laws in the workplace in the context of new and emerging technologies, like AI. The regulations aim to: Make it clear that the use of an automated-decision system may violate California law if it harms applicants or employees based on protected characteristics, such as gender, race, or disability. Ensure employers and covered entities maintain employment records, including automated-decision data, for a minimum of four years. Affirm that automated-decision system assessments, including tests, questions, or puzzle games that elicit information about a disability, may constitute an unlawful medical inquiry. Add definitions for key terms used in the regulations, such as “automated-decision system,” “agent,” and “proxy.” Senate Bill 53: Transparency Regarding Use of AI In Employment Governor Newsom signed SB 53, the “Transparence in Frontier Artificial Intelligence Act,” which becomes effective January 1, 2026. This new law is designed to govern “frontier” models, which are large, cutting-edge systems built by major developers with substantial resources. The aim of the law is to encourage innovation while protecting public safety and property from catastrophic risks. Any large frontier developer must create and publicly post a Frontier AI Framework that explains how it identifies and mitigates catastrophic risks, follows recognized safety standards, and conducts oversight. The law further requires developers to share summaries of risk assessments with the State on a regular basis and prohibits false or misleading statements about their compliance. Enforcement will include civil penalties – potentially up to $1 million per violation – and ongoing oversight by the California Government Operations Agency. SB 53 protects whistleblowers, i.e., employees who raise concerns about catastrophic risks or violations, with anti-retaliation measures, anonymous reporting options, and the ability for employees to seek injunctive relief in court.

Hiring and Firing

Assembly Bill 692: Employment Contract Repayment Prohibition AB 692 creates Business and Professions Code section 16608 and Labor Code section 926, which prohibit employers, training providers or debt collectors from entering into employment contracts that impose financial penalties, repayment obligations or fees tied to the termination of employment. The bill would define these contracts as contracts that restrain a person from engaging in lawful possession, trade, or business, and as void and contrary to public policy. This law does not apply to certain contracts that relate to discretionary bonuses or relocation payments, so long as they meet certain requirements, including: The repayment terms are in a separate agreement that is different from the original employment agreement; The employee must be advised of their right to consult an attorney and be given at the minimum five (5) business days to be able to review with the attorney before signing; Any repayment obligation for early separation must be prorated based on the remaining retention period for the employee, solely up to two years, and cannot accrue interest; The employee must have the option to defer receipt of the payment until the end of the retention period; and The repayment may only apply if the employee leaves voluntarily or is terminated for misconduct. This bill would allow employees who have been subject to the prohibited conduct of a contract to bring an action on behalf of that worker and other persons similarly situated. A violator may be liable for actual damages and/or penalties. Assembly Bill 858: COVID-19 Right of Recall Extended AB 858 expands the sunset date for COVID-19-related recall and reinstatement rights to January 1, 2027 for employees in the hospitality and business services industry (including, but not limited to, hotels, event centers and employer that provide maintenance services). Senate Bill 617: CalWARN Notices Expanded This bill introduces new requirements for employers in California when providing written notice under the California Worker Adjustment and Retraining (CalWARN) Act when implementing a mass layoff, relocation or termination at a covered establishment. Employers will be required to include whether they plan to coordinate services through the local workforce development board or another entity. They must also include certain language regarding rapid response activities offered by the local workforce development board, as well as information related to statewide food assistance programs, such as CalFresh, and a functioning email address and telephone number of the employer.

Wage and Hour Laws

Senate Bill 642: Pay Equity and Pay Scale Definition Existing law under the California Equal Pay Act requires employers to provide pay scale information to applicants and employees when requested; employers with 15 or more employees must prove “pay scale” information in job postings. SB 642 revises the definition of “pay scale” to mean “a good faith estimate” of the salary or hourly wage range the employer reasonably expects to pay for the position upon hire. The new law also increases the statute of limitations under the Equal Pay Act from two (2) to three (3) years, and claims may relate back up to six (6) years. Additionally, the definition of “wages” and “wage rates” was changed to include “all forms of pay, including but not limited to, salary, overtime pay, bonuses, stock, stock options, profit sharing and bonus plans, life insurance, vacation and holiday pay, cleaning and gasoline allowances, hotel accommodations, reimbursement for travel expenses, and benefits.” Assembly Bill 774: Wage Garnishment Law AB 774 updates California’s Wage Garnishment Law by requiring employers to provide levying officers with additional information in the employer’s return related to wage garnishments. This allows judgment creditors to obtain more complete information from employers when collecting judgments. Senate Bill 261: DLSE Strengthened Enforcement on Wage Judgments Under this bill, employers who fail to pay their final wage judgments will face significant penalties – up three times the amount of the unpaid judgment plus interest if the judgment remains unpaid for 180 days after the appeal period expires. The new law will allow for the recovery of attorneys’ fees and costs and broader enforcement options for the Labor Commissioner, including successor employer liability. The bill requires the full amount of the penalty unless the employer can show by clear and convincing evidence that good cause existed to lower the penalty. Half of the penalty amount would go to the employee, and the other half would go to the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement (DLSE) for enforcement of labor laws. Assembly Bill 751: Rest Periods for Safety Sensitive Positions AB 751 extends the exemption of certain rest-period requirements for employees in specifically designated “safety-sensitive” positions at petroleum facilities and specifically applies to refineries that use alternative feedstocks to produce fuel. Senate Bill 809: Employee Vehicle Business Expenses and Independent Contractors SB 809 clarifies that existing law does not consider ownership of a vehicle used to perform labor or services for compensation, whether personal or commercial, as determinative of a worker’s status as an independent contractor. It further clarifies that the Labor Code provision requiring employers to reimburse employees for necessary work-related expenditures (Labor Code section 2802) includes costs associated with the use of personal and commercial vehicles. In the context of construction trucking, SB 809 requires employers to reimburse employees who are commercial drivers and who own their trucks, tractors, or trailers for expenses related to use, maintenance, and depreciation. Further, the new law creates the “Construction Trucking Employer Amnesty Program,” that allows qualifying construction contractors to avoid statutory or civil penalties for previous misclassifications for drivers as independent contractors. To qualify, contractors must enter into a qualifying settlement agreement by January 1, 2029.

Leaves of Absence

Assembly Bill 406: Judicial Proceeding and Jury Duty Leaves On October 1, 2025, Governor Newsom signed AB 406 into law, which took immediate effect. AB 406 expands the scope of paid sick leave and job-protected unpaid leave, allowing crime victims and their family members to take lawful leave while participating in judicial proceedings. AB 406 also amends existing jury duty leave law (Labor Code Section 230) by removing the requirement that employees provide reasonable advance notice before taking time off to serve on a jury. However, when employees use paid sick leave or unpaid job-protected leave specifically for jury duty, the standard notice requirements apply (reasonable advance notice unless not feasible). The new law also restores the enforcement authority of the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement (DLSE). Senate Bill 590: California’s Paid Family Leave Expanded to Cover Designated Persons Under SB 590, starting July 1, 2028, California’s Paid Family Leave (PFL) benefits will extend to employees who need time off to care for a “designated person” – an individual related by blood or with a relationship equivalent of a family relationship. When applying for family temporary disability benefits, employees must identify this person and declare under penalty of perjury how they are related by blood to the person or how their relationship is equal to a family relationship.

Labor Law

Assembly Bill 288: Expansion of PERB’s Authority to Private Employers AB 288 expands the jurisdiction of California Public Employment Relations Board (PERB) to include oversight of private sector employers subject to the National Labor Relationships Board (NLRB) under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). Employees would be able to petition PERB for relief when the NLRB fails to provide a timely remedy. Among other things, PERB would be able to certify elections, decide unfair labor practice cases, and order binding mediation or other relief (including civil penalties). The legislation also creates a PERB Enforcement Fund to receive collected penalties and support PERB’s increased workload.

Noteworthy Employment Law Decisions from 2025

Carranza v. City of Los Angeles: “Totality of the Circumstances” Hostile Work Environment In Carranza, plaintiff, a Los Angeles Police Department officer, became the target of a degrading campaign involving a doctored nude photo circulated among other officers. Despite her requests, the department failed to take corrective action, allowing the photo’s distribution to continue unchecked. The court found this created a hostile work environment, making it difficult for the plaintiff to perform her duties. The court applied the 2019 amendments to FEHA, which allow a single incident to establish liability if it unreasonably interferes with work performance or creates an intimidating environment. This case emphasizes a broader interpretation of what constitutes a hostile work environment under FEHA, looking at the “totality of the circumstance.” This approach considers the overall impact of the harassment, rather than requiring a pattern of bad acts, and recognizes the impact of widespread, unchecked distribution of harmful materials. This case highlights the importance of employers taking appropriate corrective action upon learning of potential harassment. Also, employers should implement policies and training to address and prevent harassment, considering the broader implications of the “totality of the circumstances” approach. Bradsbery v. Vicar Operating, Inc.: Meal Period Waivers In Bradsbery, the court ruled that prospective meal period waivers for shifts of five to six hours are enforceable, provided the waivers are written, voluntary, and revocable at any time. Iloff v. LaPaille: Good Faith Defenses and Liquidated Damages Labor Code section 1194.2 provides proven minimum wage violations are sufficient for liquidated damages, which are designed to compensate employees for unpaid minimum wages and to penalize employers. In Iloof, the California Supreme Court ruled that an employer may claim a good faith defense to liquidated damages. A good faith defense requires “an employer must show that it made a reasonable attempt to determine the requirements of the law governing minimum wages,” such as by taking affirmative steps to understand wage and hour laws. However, the court reiterated ignorance of the law is not a defense. Kruitbosch v. Bakersfield Recovery Services: Coworker Harassment In Kruitbosch, a California court determined that while a coworker's off-site harassment is not automatically imputable to an employer, the employer can still be liable under the FEHA for its response to a complaint. In this case, alleged that a female coworker subjected him to unwanted sexual advances, including sending him unsolicited nude images, visiting his home uninvited, texting him sexual propositions and an offer of drugs, and leaving a cucumber covered with a condom in his driveway. The conduct occurred while the employee was on a month-long leave of absence because his partner died. The court reaffirmed that offsite harassment must be work-related to be actionable. However, the court made clear that an employer’s response to an off-site harassment complaint itself can create a hostile work environment, even if the off-site harassment is not work-related. The court emphasized that the “totality of the circumstances” must be evaluated to determine whether a work environment is reasonably perceived as hostile or abusive. Here, the court determined that the employer’s response could have altered Kruitbosch’s working environment in an objectively severe manner – it refused to investigate the complaint, failed to admonish the alleged harasser, and made a mockery of the employee’s complaint Caldrone v. Circle K Stores, Inc: Age Discrimination and In-Office Hiring In this age discrimination case, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals found summary judgment was inappropriate where Plaintiff raised issues of material disputed facts as to whether the employer followed its established practice of seeking internal applications for an available position. The court found the employer’s decision not to post a promotion and instead handpick a younger candidate supported the older employees’ claims. The court found that the failure to follow the standard hiring procedure prevented the older, qualified employees from applying and, combined with evidence of the decision-maker's ageist comments, created a triable issue of pretext for discrimination. Ames v. Ohio Dept. of Youth Services: Requirements for Reverse Discrimination In Ames, the United States Supreme Court ruled that Title VII discrimination plaintiffs who are members of a “majority group” are not required to meet a higher evidentiary burden than those in minority groups. Accordingly, a plaintiff who falls within a majority group, such as heterosexual or male, has the same burden of proof as other protected categories.

Conclusion

The employment law changes taking effect in 2026 are significant and will impact nearly all California employers. We encourage you to contact our office for comprehensive compliance support, including updates to employee handbooks, revisions to employment agreements, evaluations of compensation practices, and other proactive measures to help ensure your organization is fully prepared for the new year]]> On Behalf of Duggan McHugh Law Corporation <![CDATA[Ignorance Is No Defense: California Supreme Court Clarifies the Employer’s Burden When Asserting the Good Faith Defense to Liquidated Damages for Minimum Wage Violations]]> https://www.dugganmchugh.com/?p=52516 2025-10-02T19:51:57Z 2025-09-30T07:36:32Z Iloff v. LaPaille, the California Supreme Court made clear that ignorance of the law is no defense to liability when it comes to paying “liquidated” damages for minimum wage violations. The high court ruled that employers who intend to rely on the “good faith” defense to avoid paying “liquidated” or double damages must prove that they made a reasonable attempt to determine the requirements of the law. In this case, the employee, Laurence Iloff, lived and performed maintenance work on property owned by Bridgeville Properties, Inc. and managed by Cynthia LaPaille. Under an informal agreement, Iloff was allowed to live rent-free on the property in exchange for his maintenance work. He received no other wages or benefits. After the arrangement ended, Iloff filed a claim with the California Labor Commissioner alleging he was an employee, not an independent contractor. He claimed unpaid wages, interest, and penalties, including liquidated damages under California Labor Code section 1194.2, which requires employers to pay double for any unpaid minimum wages. The trial court determined Iloff was properly classified as an employee but found in favor of LaPaille on the issue of liquidated damages, concluding that LaPaille had acted in “good faith” and had “reasonable grounds” to believe they were complying with the minimum wage laws. This conclusion was based on the court’s finding that Iloff and LaPaille had a mutual understanding that the maintenance work performed was in exchange for free rent, and that neither party believed Iloff would be compensated with wages or considered an employee. The Court of Appeal upheld this ruling, but the California Supreme Court reversed, holding that liquidated damages must be awarded and LaPaille’s mere ignorance of the law (even when based on the parties’ mutual understanding) was insufficient to establish a good faith defense. It concluded that a valid “good faith” defense requires an employer prove it made reasonable attempts to determine what the minimum wage law required and that ignorance alone does not prove good faith. However, the high court declined to adopt a rigid formula of what constitutes a “reasonable attempt” to determine the law, noting that the “form and extent of the required attempt is context dependent.” The Iloff decision underscores how important it is for employers to stay informed of California wage and hour laws, audit their payroll practices regularly, and take proactive compliance measures to avoid violations and penalties – including liquidated damages for minimum wage violations. The attorneys at Duggan McHugh are available to assist employers in navigating and staying compliant with the ever-changing California wage and labor laws.]]> On Behalf of Duggan McHugh Law Corporation <![CDATA[Why Firing For ‘Culture Fit’ Can Backfire On Employers]]> https://www.dugganmchugh.com/?p=52506 2025-08-28T23:33:38Z 2025-08-28T23:33:38Z Kean v. Brinker International, Inc., spells out some potential legal risks for employers who cite poor company culture fit as a reason for termination. In this case, a 59-year-old general manager of a Chili’s restaurant was terminated for allegedly not “living the Chili’s way” (a phrase the company used to describe delivering a positive customer experience for guests and fostering a positive work environment for employees). He was replaced by a 33-year-old with no prior management experience. The former manager sued Chili’s for age discrimination. At the trial court level, Chili’s filed a motion for summary judgment on the basis that it had a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for terminating the manager. The trial court granted Chili’s’ motion, and the former employee appealed. On appeal, the Sixth Circuit reversed the summary judgment, finding that Chili’s did not have sufficient admissible evidence to support its position that the termination decision was motivated by poor cultural fit. While this case does not arise out of California, it still serves as an important reminder for employers nationwide that citing poor cultural fit as a reason for termination carries potential legal risks. Does this mean employers should not terminate employees who are not adhering to company values and culture? Not necessarily. But they should take deliberate steps to document and substantiate termination decisions. Here are steps employers should take to avoid the type of costly, protracted litigation that Chili’s is currently defending:
  • Document performance concerns as they happen, including for culture fit. For example, if an employee does not demonstrate the kind of customer service you expect and want to see, promptly bring it to the employee’s attention, and contemporaneously document the issue with the date and a detailed summary of what happened.
  • Keep all documentation (including emails and text messages) related to employee performance. Employees can bring claims against former employers up to four years after their employment ends, so make sure you keep records for at least that long. You will need to work with your IT staff to ensure that electronically stored items are not automatically deleted before that time period expires.
  • It is generally a good idea to inform employees why they are being terminated. Although California is an at-will employment state and you don’t have to provide a reason, when you don’t, the terminated employee comes to their own conclusions, and rarely do they conclude it was because of their own conduct.
The attorneys at Duggan McHugh are available to assist employers in navigating disciplinary and termination decisions involving potential breaches of company culture and core values.]]> On Behalf of Duggan McHugh Law Corporation <![CDATA[Velarde v. Monroe Operations, LLC | Crucial Lessons for Roll Out of Arbitration Agreements]]> https://www.dugganmchugh.com/?p=52493 2025-07-16T16:14:43Z 2025-07-16T16:14:43Z In Velarde v. Monroe Operations, LLC (June 2025, No. G063626), a California Court of Appeal invalidated an employer’s arbitration agreement due to procedural unconscionability – meaning it was not struck down for its terms, but for the manner in which it was presented to the employee.  The employer required that the employee review and sign a five-page arbitration agreement quickly and before she could start work. Further, the arbitration agreement was buried alongside more than 30 other onboarding documents and forms. When the employee stated she was confused about the agreement, the employer’s Human Resources Manager told her that the purpose of the agreement was to "help us resolve any issues without having to pay lawyers," which was not accurate since the agreement expressly stated that the parties to the agreement would bear their own attorneys fees. Taken together, the inadequate time for the employee to review the agreement and the employer’s misrepresentation of the agreement’s terms (even if the misrepresentation was not intentional) rendered the agreement procedurally unconscionable and unenforceable.  The take aways for employers cannot be understated:
  • Collaborate with legal counsel to create clear, accurate, and objective talking points on the employment arbitration agreement – so employees receive precise information. 
  • Ensure employees responsible for discussing arbitration agreements with colleagues are fully trained on the key talking points. Develop a procedure whereby, if an employee asks a question about the agreement not covered by an approved talking point, the question will be escalated to management who can consult with legal counsel. This reduces the risk of misrepresenting the agreement to employees. 
  • Include a clause in offer letters for new hires stating the requirement of an arbitration agreement and attach the agreement so candidates can review it before their first day of work. 
  • As a reminder, to avoid further enforceability issues, arbitration agreements should be rolled out to employees in hard copy versus electronically. Employers who wish to roll out electronic arbitration agreements should work with legal counsel to ensure their processes are legally sound and employee electronic signatures are enforceable. 
  • Lastly, arbitration agreements should be translated for non-English speaking employees so that employees understand what they are signing. 
Do not hesitate to contact Duggan McHugh for assistance with your arbitration agreement roll out procedures, preparation of objective talking points regarding the agreement, or to review your arbitration agreements for legal compliance. ]]> On Behalf of Duggan McHugh Law Corporation <![CDATA[New Posting Requirement: Crime Victims Leave Notice Now Available]]> https://www.dugganmchugh.com/?p=52491 2025-07-10T17:31:23Z 2025-07-10T16:48:33Z On July 1, 2025, the California Civil Rights Department (CRD) published a new mandatory workplace notice titled: “Survivors of Violence and Family Members of Victims Right to Leave and Accommodations.” This publication stems from AB 2499, which took effect on January 1, 2025, and significantly expanded the rights of employees affected by crime—either directly or through a family member.

What Employers Need to Know

AB 2499 builds on California’s longstanding protections for victims of domestic violence, sexual assault, and similar crimes. It broadens the scope of who qualifies as a crime victim, clarifies the types of accommodations that may be required, and enhances leave rights for employees of employers with 25 or more employees. Now that the CRD’s official notice is available, employers have new distribution obligations:
  • Provide the notice to employees:
    • Upon hire
    • Every year
    • Upon request
    • Any time an employee notifies you that they or a family member is a crime victim
  • Distribute electronically to remote or hybrid workers
The notice is available in multiple languages, including English and Spanish.

Next Steps for Employers

  • Add the notice to your onboarding packet and internal HR library
  • Update applicable leave and accommodation policies in your handbook
  • Set an annual reminder to distribute the notice
  • Ensure HR staff are trained on how to respond to disclosures or requests under AB 2499
Please contact our office if you have questions about compliance or need assistance integrating these updates into your policies and procedures.]]> On Behalf of Duggan McHugh Law Corporation <![CDATA[Wages on the Rise: What California Employers Need to Know by July 1]]> https://www.dugganmchugh.com/?p=52448 2025-06-16T15:11:08Z 2025-06-13T18:24:45Z Here are the updates that are effective July 1, 2025:
  • Berkeley: $18.87/hr → increasing to $19.18/hr
  • City of Los Angeles: $17.28 → increasing to $17.87/hr
  • Emeryville: $19.36/hr → increasing to $19.90/hr
  • Fremont: $17.30/hr → increasing to $17.75/hr
  • Los Angeles County (unincorporated areas): $17.27/hr → increasing to $17.81/hr
  • Milpitas: $17.70/hr → increasing to $18.20/hr
  • Pasadena: $17.50/hr → increasing to $18.04/hr
  • San Francisco: $18.67/hr → increasing to $19.18/hr
  • Santa Monica: $17.27/hr → increasing to $17.81/hr
  • West Hollywood (Hotel Workers): $19.61 → increasing to $20.22/hour (effective until June 30, 2026)
Several California cities have industry-specific minimum wages—such as for hotel, fast food, and healthcare workers—that often exceed the general local minimum wage and vary by location. The list above does not capture all of these rates. Employers should review local wage laws for each jurisdiction and industry where their employees work, including remote workers, to ensure full compliance. Where required, be sure to post official local minimum wage notices at each worksite. Finally, employers must update their “Notice to Employee” forms to reflect any applicable wage changes.]]> by Duggan McHugh Law Corporation <![CDATA[Immigration Action Checklist]]> https://www.dugganmchugh.com/?p=52400 2025-02-27T23:36:55Z 2025-02-27T23:36:55Z Steps to Take Prior to an Official ICE Visit Conduct an Internal Audit of Forms I-9 All employers are subject to Form I-9 audits conducted by ICE to verify compliance with federal immigration laws in their hiring practices. A proactive way to prepare for such an audit is to conduct an internal Form I-9 audit to ensure your forms are complete and accurate. You can follow this link for guidance developed by ICE on this topic. Designate Your Company Representative Employers should appoint a Company Representative authorized to make decisions on the company’s behalf during an immigration visit, such as granting ICE agents access to employee records. This representative will also serve as the primary point of contact for ICE agents visiting the workplace. Once designated, employers should ensure that non-designated employees are aware of who the Company Representative is, so they can provide the representative’s contact information to ICE agents. Designate Public and Non-Public Areas of the Workplace ICE agents and local law enforcement cannot enter “non-public” areas without a valid judicial warrant (discussed below) or the permission of an authorized representative. Public areas of a workplace or business are those where the general public typically has access, such as lobbies, entry areas, waiting rooms, or parking lots. ICE and Customs and Border Protection (CBP) have the authority to enter public areas, observe anything in plain view, and ask questions about immigration status without warrants. Employers should carefully determine which areas of the workplace to designate as “non-public.” Consider using physical markers, like signs reading “Private,” and keep doors and other spaces that provide access to confidential employee information locked. Additionally, employers should develop a policy where only a trained Company Representative grants access to non-public areas. Train Employees on their Rights Employers should ensure that all employees understand their rights during immigration enforcement actions. Employees should be trained on their right to remain silent and consult with an attorney, even if approached by ICE agents in public areas of the workplace. Employers also should make it clear that employees are not obligated to provide any documentation regarding their immigration status to ICE agents, even if requested. Steps to Take During an Official ICE Visit Request the Purpose of the Visit Upon the arrival of ICE agents, the Company Representative should: 1) inquire about the purpose of their visit, and 2) request the officers’ badge number and names. Employers can expect ICE agents to provide a Notice of Inspection (NOI) to audit the Company’s Forms I-9, present a warrant to search for certain items, and/or present a warrant to arrest certain individual(s). If presented with a NOI, employers have at least three business days to provide the requested Forms I-9. (8 CFR § 274a.2(b)(2)(ii).) Employers should not allow ICE agents access to physical spaces or produce any material immediately upon the NOI being served. If the visit is based on a warrant, the Company Representative should know the difference between a judicial warrant and an administrative warrant to decide how to proceed with the ICE visit. Judicial warrants provide ICE agents with the authority to search a specific area to seize documents, or other items, or to arrest named individuals. The Company must comply with Judicial warrants only they are signed and dated by a judge, specify a time frame for the search, describe the premises to be searched, and list the items to be searched and seized, such as payroll records, employee ID documents, Forms I-9, or Social Security Administration correspondence, and if the warrant is for an arrest, it must identify by name the list of individuals to be arrested. In contrast, employers are not required to comply with administrative warrants. If shown an administrative warrant, employers can refuse permission to ICE agents. To verify an administrative warrant, check if it is signed and dated by an ICE official (not a judge), includes “Department of Homeland Security,” and is filled out on Forms I-200 or I-205. If shown a purported warrant, whether judicial or administrative, employers should request a copy and send it to legal counsel for validation. Do Not Interfere or Obstruct with the Visit If presented with a valid judicial warrant, the Company Representative must allow ICE agents to search the specified areas for the listed items. Do not interfere or obstruct the investigation, but object and note any instances where the agents exceed their authority (e.g., searching unspecified areas or items). If comfortable, the Company Representative may videotape the agents to document their visit. If presented with a valid judicial warrant for an employee’s arrest, the Company Representative must comply by producing the employee. However, with an administrative warrant, the Company Representative should not disclose whether the employee is working or bring the employee to the agent. Sometimes, ICE agents will delegate certain functions to local law enforcement under ICE’s oversight (see Public Law 104-208). If local law enforcement, without ICE agents, attempts to arrest an employee or search items based on an administrative warrant, you should not provide any information or lead them to the employee. Instead, ask if they have a judicial warrant signed by a judge. Steps to Take After the Visit Immediately following the visit, the Company Representative should document the visit by making a record, including the following:
  • The number of ICE agents present (inside and outside)
  • How the agents were dressed
  • Whether they were armed
  • Whether the agents made you or your workers believe you could not move or leave
  • Whether the agents mistreated anyone, and if so, how
Key Takeaways Employers should not only understand how to handle an ICE visit but also take proactive steps to ensure future visits go smoothly. It is important to carefully select a Company Representative for such visits and ensure they receive proper training to manage the situation calmly while protecting their employees’ privacy. Lastly, employers should always contact legal counsel immediately to ensure that legal compliance when faced with a warrant or a Notice of Inspection.]]> by Duggan McHugh Law Corporation <![CDATA[From Lovers to Lawsuits: The Privacy Pitfalls of Non-Fraternization Policies]]> https://www.dugganmchugh.com/?p=52401 2025-02-06T18:20:33Z 2025-02-06T18:20:33Z Love is in the air, and so is the potential for employer liability when it comes to workplace romances.

According to a recent survey conducted by Human Resources specialists at Manage Business, the average employee spends over 30% of their time working, commuting, and preparing for work. (https://managebusiness.org/employees-spend-30-time-at-work/). With so much time spent together, it’s no surprise that workplace relationships often develop. But where does the line between personal privacy and professional policy enforcement begin and end?

Striking a Delicate Balance: Privacy vs. Policy

Employers must walk a fine line between respecting employees' rights to privacy and enforcing policies designed to maintain a lawful and professional work environment. Non-fraternization policies are often put in place to mitigate the risk of sexual harassment claims, but they also raise concerns about employees' rights to engage in private, off-duty relationships.

The Constitutional Right to Privacy

In California, privacy is more than a personal expectation, it’s a constitutional right. Article I, Section 1, of the California Constitution explicitly protects a citizen’s right to privacy. (Cal. Const., art. I, § 1.) Courts have recognized this right as a potential limitation on employers seeking to regulate workplace relationships. For instance, in Ortiz v. Los Angeles Police Relief Ass’n, the court acknowledged that an employer’s attempt to control intimate relationships between employees through a non-fraternization policy could be subject to legal scrutiny. (Ortiz v. Los Angeles Police Relief Ass’n (2002) 98 Cal.App.4th 1288.)

To evaluate the legality of a non-fraternization policy, courts apply a balancing test, weighing an employee’s right to privacy against an employer’s interest in regulating off-duty relationships (Wilkinson v. Times Mirror Corp. (1989) 215 Cal.App.3d 1034). In Ellis v. United Parcel Service, Inc., the Seventh Circuit rejected overly restrictive non-fraternization policies, citing the risk of infringing on employees’ rights. (Ellis v. United Parcel Service, Inc. (7th Cir. 2008) 523 F.3d 823.) While California courts have not, to date, held a non-fraternization policy to be a violation of the right to privacy, the constitutional right to privacy may still form the basis for a wrongful termination claim where an employee is terminated for fraternizing in violation of the employer’s policy.

Employer Takeaway: Proceed with Caution

Employers must be mindful when implementing non-fraternization policies. While such policies can be a valuable tool for mitigating the risk of harassment claims and maintaining professionalism, they should be thoughtfully structured to avoid undue interference in employees' personal lives. A policy that is too rigid may not only invite legal challenges but also foster resentment and secrecy among employees, potentially undermining workplace morale. To strike the right balance, employers should consider tailoring non-fraternization policies to focus on supervisor-subordinate relationships or conflicts of interest rather than imposing broad, sweeping restrictions.

Consulting with employment counsel is crucial in crafting a policy that upholds company interests while respecting employees' fundamental rights. Employers should aim to cultivate an environment where professionalism and personal boundaries coexist harmoniously. A well-balanced approach will not only protect the organization from legal pitfalls but also contribute to a more engaged, trusting, and productive workforce.

]]> by Duggan McHugh Law Corporation <![CDATA[New Year, New Chance to Take All Reasonable Steps to Avoid or Cap PAGA Penalties]]> https://www.dugganmchugh.com/?p=52403 2025-01-17T00:06:56Z 2025-01-17T00:06:56Z What are “Reasonable Steps?” With PAGA reform, employers can now minimize the risk of costly litigation by proactively taking “all reasonable steps” to prevent Labor Code violations and ensuring their policies, practices and procedures comply with applicable laws and regulations. “Reasonable steps” are defined to include, but are not limited to:
  1. Conducting periodic payroll audits and taking action in response to the results of those audits;
  2. Disseminating lawful written policies;
  3. Training supervisors on applicable Labor Code and wage order compliance; and
  4. Taking appropriate corrective action where a supervisor is noted as not acting in compliance with the employer’s policies and the Labor Code.
Significantly Reduced Penalties Taking these “reasonable steps” before receiving a PAGA notice or request for employment records places a cap on the amount of PAGA penalties that are recoverable by an aggrieved employee on behalf of the California Labor and Workforce Development Agency (“LWDA”) at 15% of the applicable PAGA penalty (typically, but not always, the penalty is $100 per pay period, per employee, dating back one year prior to the PAGA notice). Even where an employer has already received a PAGA notice (provided the notice is dated June 19, 2024 or later), if it takes “all reasonable steps” within 60 days of receipt of the PAGA notice, the amount of PAGA penalties that are recoverable by an employee on behalf of the LWDA are capped at 30% of the applicable penalty. Takeaway If an employer faces a PAGA lawsuit, taking "all reasonable steps" to prevent Labor Code violations within 60 days of receiving the PAGA notice (or having already taken "reasonable steps" before receiving the notice) will significantly reduce the value of the PAGA claim. With the new year, employers should take the opportunity to audit their employee handbooks and related wage and hour policies for compliance, making revisions where needed, schedule and conduct periodic payroll audits, and train supervisors, as supervisors are the front lines in ensuring employer’s lawful policies are being followed compliantly. Duggan McHugh attorneys are available to assist employers with wage and hour compliance. If you are interested in implementing reasonable steps as now allowed under the reformed PAGA, please contact us.]]> by Duggan McHugh Law Corporation <![CDATA[Katie Collins Named Partner]]> https://www.dugganmchugh.com/?p=52404 2025-01-07T22:53:55Z 2025-01-07T22:53:55Z Duggan McHugh Law Corporation is excited to announce that Katie Collins has been promoted to Partner. She joins Senior Partners Jennifer Duggan and Laura McHugh and Partner Christina Bucci Hamilton. Since joining Duggan McHugh in 2023, Katie has been an integral part of our team, consistently demonstrating exceptional legal skills and a deep understanding of our clients’ needs. She exemplifies the firm’s dedication to the business community by helping clients make informed, strategic employment decisions. Through her diligent research and practical experience, Katie has become a trusted subject matter expert, achieving favorable outcomes in areas including wage and hour class action and PAGA defense. In addition to her legal expertise, Katie has been instrumental in training and mentoring new associates, further increasing the firm’s strength and reputation. We look forward to her continued success and leadership within our firm. Duggan McHugh is proud to recognize Katie’s outstanding contributions to the firm with this well-deserved promotion. Congratulations, Katie! You’ve most certainly earned it.]]>