New employment laws take effect in California in 2015. Here’s a handy list of the most significant new laws that you should be aware of as an employer that have or will take effect in 2015.

1. Many California employers will be required to provide Paid Sick Leave starting July 1, 2015.
2. California Labor Code § 2810.3 will require businesses to automatically share liability with a “labor contractor,” such as a temporary staffing agency, if the agency fails to pay wages or provide workers’ compensation insurance to its employees who are assigned to work at the business.
3. The Fair Employment and Housing Act has expanded the definition of “national origin” to include the circumstances under which someone got their driver’s license (i.e. if they got a type of license provided to undocumented workers).
4. AB 1443 extends the protections under the FEHA to interns.
5. AB 2503 requires that mandatory sexual harassment training include information on bullying.
6. AB 2617 prohibits mandatory arbitration agreements from including claims for violations of certain civil code sections dealing with violence or threats of violence based on sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, disability, medical condition, genetic information, marital status, sexual orientation or political affiliation. It seems to us to be a clear violation of the Federal Arbitration Act, but California courts and legislatures have been fighting that battle for years.
7. AB 326 Sometimes technology advances more quickly than legislation. Employers must report workplace deaths or serious illnesses or injuries to Cal OSHA immediately. That’s not changing. But where the old law says the reports must be made by telephone or telegraph, the new law says by telephone or e-mail. Who knew that the job outlook for telegraph operators could get any bleaker?
8. New minimum wages in San Francisco ($11.05 effective January 1, 2015), Oakland ($12.25 effective March 2, 2015), San Jose ($10.30 effective January 1, 2015), San Diego ($9.75 effective January 1, 2015), and hotels within the City of Los Angeles ($15.37 effective July 1, 2015 or July 1, 2016, depending on the number of hotel rooms).
9. The minimum pay for exempt computer professionals increases to $41.27 per hour, $7,165.12 per month, or $85,981.40 per year.

Here are steps employers can take to better protect themselves:

• Make sure personnel policies and handbooks are up to date;
• Train managers to understand that certain issues, such as requests to accommodate a disability, leave requests, deciding who’s exempt from overtime requirements, etc., should be escalated to someone with specialized knowledge;
• Check with your Labor attorney to discuss these changes and how it effects the operation of your business.

The information presented is not intended to be, and does not constitute, “legal advice.” Because each situation varies, and only brief summary information is provided here, you should not use this information as a basis for action unless you have independently verified with your own counsel that it applies to your particular situation.

Forum selection clauses in contracts are always a hot topic. The California Court of Appeals in the recent case of Verdugo v. Alliant Group, L.P. held forum selection clauses in employment agreements that choose forums in which to litigate that in any way diminish the substantive rights afforded employees under California law are invalid since California statutory employee rights cannot be waived.

The Court offered a work-around. If the foreign forum provides the same or greater rights than California, or the foreign forum will apply California law on the claims at issue, then the matter may be tried in a forum outside of California.

The substance of your employment agreements should not remain static. It is prudent to have your legal counsel review your employment agreements on, at least, an annual basis.

The information presented is not intended to be, and does not constitute, “legal advice.” Because each situation varies, and only brief summary information is provided here, you should not use this information as a basis for action unless you have independently verified with your own counsel that it applies to your particular situation.

California and Federal Law protect certain personal information of prospective employees for disclosure and make it illegal for employers to even ask for the information. Here are just a few prohibited questions:

“How Old Are You?”
Employers have the legal right to make sure a prospective employee is old enough to work for them, but other than that, cannot directly ask for the prospective employee’s age or indirectly ask questions that reveal the employment applicants’ age, such as “how long have you been working?” or “when did you graduate high school?”

“Have You Ever Been Arrested?”
Employers are allowed to ask if an applicant has ever been convicted of a crime. However, employers cannot ask the applicant if he or she has ever been arrested in general.

“How Is Your Health?”
It is illegal for employers to ask prospective employees if they are in good health, how tall they are, how much they weigh, if they have had any past illness or operations, or how many sick days they took at their last job. However, employers can ask about specific physical abilities related to tasks the applicant would be required to perform.

It’s also illegal for employers to directly ask if an applicant has any disabilities as such a question is prohibited by the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). An employer may ask if an applicant can perform the basic functions of the position without accommodation.

“Are You Married?”
Anything that fishes for information about a candidate’s family plans (marriage, engagement, and child planning) is technically illegal because it falls under pregnancy discrimination.

“What Is Your Religion?”
The religion an applicant practices, the holidays they observe, and anything related to those things, is personal information applicants never have to disclose.

“What Is Your Nationality?”
An employer can check whether an applicant can legally work for them, but cannot ask questions regarding the applicant’s race or place of birth, whether they are a U.S. citizen, or whether English is their native language. Employers, however, can ask what languages the prospective employee reads, speaks, or writes fluently.

“Do You Like to Drink Socially?”
The FDA categorizes alcoholism as a disability. Therefore, employers should not ask about alcohol, or even tobacco use, by a prospective employee.

“Have You Ever Used Drugs In the Past?”
An employer cannot ask about a candidate’s past use of illegal or prescription drugs. However, employers can ask whether the candidate is currently using any illegal drugs, but, why ask? It is better to establish a drug-free workplace that requires random drug testing and a mandatory drug test before the candidate is hired. Then, an employer will not run afoul of the law and will not have to rely on a self-serving statement of the candidate to determine whether the candidate is presently using illegal substances.

As always, it is recommended that you check with your Labor attorney before asking any questions of a future employee that may be a violation of his/her right to privacy.

The information presented is not intended to be, and does not constitute, “legal advice.” Because each situation varies, and only brief summary information is provided here, you should not use this information as a basis for action unless you have independently verified with your own counsel that it applies to your particular situation.

California employers should be aware that employees under 18 years old may disaffirm agreements that they sign.

In Lopez v. Kmart, the United States District Court for the Northern District of California held an employee who, as a minor, signs an employment arbitration agreement as part of his or her employment may later disaffirm the agreement and, thus, avoid mandatory arbitration of employment-related claims. The basis for permitting disaffirmation of an agreement signed by a minor is contained in California Family Code Section 6710, which states: “…a contract of a minor may be disaffirmed by the minor before majority or within a reasonable time afterwards.”

California employers that hire minors and require them to sign an agreement where they surrender certain rights to litigate complaints should consult with legal counsel on strategies to enforce these agreements as a result of the Lopez decision.

The information presented is not intended to be, and does not constitute, “legal advice.” Because each situation varies, and only brief summary information is provided here, you should not use this information as a basis for action unless you have independently verified with your own counsel that it applies to your particular situation.

California’s Fourth District Court of Appeal recently ruled in Miles v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. that a plaintiff who prevails in a wrongful foreclosure suit may recover tort damages from the defendant.

In the Miles case, the Court found that it was irrelevant at the time of the wrongful foreclosure whether the property owner had any equity in the property. Rather, it held wrongful foreclosure is a tort, and thus, plaintiff may recover any damages proximately caused by defendants’wrongdoing. To obtain such tort damages the Court concluded that the necessary elements of a wrongful foreclosure action are:

1. That the defendants caused an “illegal, fraudulent, or willfully oppressive sale of real property” pursuant to a power of sale in a mortgage or deed of trust;
2. That the plaintiff was “prejudiced or harmed”; and
3. That the plaintiff “tendered the amount of the secured indebtedness or was excused from tendering.”

If you are facing this type of issue, you should see an attorney, let us know if you would like a consultation. Israel & Samuels LLP provides high quality, cost-effective legal services and advice for clients in the areas of business, real property, employment and general civil law and litigation.

The information presented is not intended to be, and does not constitute, “legal advice.” Because each situation varies, and only brief summary information is provided here, you should not use this information as a basis for action unless you have independently verified with your own counsel that it applies to your particular situation.

Changes appear to be in the offing for the California Homestead Exemption Law. On May 22, 2015, the Senate passed Senate Bill 308 that may result in extensive modification of the Homestead Exemption. The bill is now in the Assembly awaiting action. Pundits expect it to pass, be signed by the Governor and become law.

Under the current law the Homestead Exemption exempts from levy by creditors $75,000, $100,000, or $175,000 in equity in the principal place of residence of a homeowner, depending on whether the homeowner is single, married, has dependent children, has a disability or is over the age of 65. Proceeds from the voluntary sale of a declared homestead are also exempt from levy for six months. In addition, under the law aggregate equity in motor vehicles exempt from attachment and sale is $2,900; and all amounts in private retirement plans, including self-employed retirement plans and individual retirement annuities or accounts qualified under Federal Internal Revenue Code of 1986 under existing law are protected from levy.

Senate Bill 308 would impose a $300,000 equity exemption for all, rather than the existing scale based on status; would make proceeds from the voluntary sale of a declared homestead indefinitely exempt from levy; raise the exemption from levy to $3,000 for motor vehicles; and expand the Individual Retirement Account Exemption to include individual retirement accounts that do not qualify under existing law on the basis of a technical defect.

The anticipated new law provisions will provide individuals with greater protection from creditors, especially for homeowners who record declared homesteads.

We economically prepare and record declared Homestead documents so you can take advantage of the protections afforded by existing law and the greater protections that will be provided by Senate Bill 308 should it become law.

The information presented is not intended to be, and does not constitute, “legal advice.” Because each situation varies, and only brief summary information is provided here, you should not use this information as a basis for action unless you have independently verified with your own counsel that it applies to your particular situation.