It’s that time of year again—California employers need to prepare for a raft of new laws that become effective in the new year.  Below is a brief overview of some of those laws and how employers should prepare for them.  All of the laws discussed below become effective on January 1, 2025. 

As the workplace continues to take a new shape, the distinction between “workplace conduct” and “off duty” conduct continues to fade for many.  After a recent Ninth Circuit ruling, employers must be more vigilant than ever in monitoring and responding to employee social media postings, even when they are personal and “off duty.”

Major changes to PAGA are now official. Most importantly:

• Employees must have experienced each of the alleged violations to have standing to sue;
• Employers can correct inaccuracies on paystubs without penalty; and 
• Employers who take specific steps to prevent Labor Code violations will be able to substantially reduce liability. 

Mintz’s Employment Practice will continue to monitor any future developments and legal challenges and remains ready to assist employers with compliance with the PWFA and the EEOC’s final rule.

A gentle reminder for California employers: the clock is ticking on your obligations to prepare a workplace violence prevention plan and conduct a training session on that plan under California’s new violence prevention plan law (SB 553). 

California employers need to be prepared for new laws that become effective starting in the new year. Here is a brief overview of those laws (including the collection of diversity for venture capital companies, an amendment in non-compete law, new protections for workplace violence and harassment, increased and expanded leaves, new presumption of retaliation for protected activities, and updates to workplace cannabis laws), their effective dates, and what employers should do now to prepare.

On the heels of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals’ recent decision clarifying its view of properly pled Title VII disparate treatment discrimination claims, which we previously covered here, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in Carr v. New York City Transit Authority, has now clarified its view of the standard for pleading retaliation claims under Title VII.