A Cal/OSHA inquiry of two California Ranch Foods worker deaths in 2020 found exposure to a hazardous release of fatal nitrogen gas the cause. In settling the LA District Attorney’s ensuing criminal charges for lax training and safety procedures, the company must:

• Serve three years’ probation
• Pay a $1 million criminal fine
• Acknowledge a $35 million civil settlement with the victims' families
• Spend $1.6 million on plant safety improvements
• Pay Cal/OSHA $50,000 to support enforcement efforts
• Donate $4 million to local food banks

Cal/OSHA Chief Debra Lee stated: "When employers fail to protect their workers and it results in a preventable death; California will hold them accountable. We will continue to use every tool available, including criminal referrals to ensure justice is served, and that safety is never optional."

The agency also announced beefing up of investigative personnel as well as a team of attorneys to enable wider prosecution of safety-violating companies.

Take-Aways:

Employers must not skimp on safety, for sake of employee well-being and to protect against such disastrous and expensive consequences.

For further information, please contact Tim Bowles, Cindy Bamforth or Helena Kobrin.

See also:

• New Health and Safety Protections for Domestic Workers: Some Now Covered by Cal/OSHA Safeguards (July 11, 2025)
• Not So Safeway? Cal/OSHA Cites Supermart for Serious Hazardous Conditions in Warehouse (February 14, 2025)

Helena Kobrin
September 5, 2025

The first day’s hike is finished on this Nepalese Monday. It is about 5:30 and the late-day sun dries out my sweat-laden body.  A young child cries up the “road.” It’s a one-trail village perched on a ridge.

Residents sit across the way in the “Tourist Hotel” drinking tea and downing rice with their right hands.  Chickens strut everywhere, pecking at your spit and anything else worth eating.

The light begins to filter through the low-lying clouds.  I sit perched on a stone wall, rhododendrons and bean vines all around.  A giant yellow spider perches upside-down in her vertical nest.

Today, we document relations with our 25-ish Tibetan refugee guide Bubu (no last name given, Bu for short).
Agreement between
Tim Bowles, Mike Nichols,
Steve (Boots) Parker and Bubu
 Bubu will be employed by the above three men at 15 rs/day for carrying an equal amount of weight with the said three men, for washing dishes with soap and for sharing in the fire-starting, cooking and wood collecting.

When we are in village areas, the above three men will give Bubu 5rs/day for food. When we are in the Annapurna Sanctuary, we three employers will supply Bubu with the necessary food.

The trip will last three weeks and will extend from Pokhara, Ghandrung, Annapurna Sanctuary, Jomosom, Baglung and back to Pokhara.

The employers will supply the necessary carrying basket.

50 rs will be paid in advance and the remaining wages upon return.

/s/ Tim          /s/ Mike          /s/ Boots          /s/ Bubu

Nandanda, Nepal

October 22, 1973

Artificial intelligence defines itself as “the simulation of human intelligence in machines that are programmed to think, learn, and solve problems like humans, enabling them to perform tasks that typically require human reasoning, such as understanding language, recognizing patterns, and making decisions.”

AI emerges as a workforce tool with the humans having already staked a claim on the do’s and don’ts. These include federal and state protections against discrimination over protected characteristics such as gender, race and disability. See, e.g., Boundaries 101, California’s Anti-Discrimination Legislation (August 1, 2025).

California’s Civil Rights Council (CRC) is out to expand those protections to AI systems in recruitment, hiring and promotion. Inadequately overseen by company management, such streamlined processes can unlawfully discriminate, particularly against qualified individuals with disabilities who may need accommodation.

To this end, the CRC has issued regulations effective October 1, 2025.

Key Provisions:

• Clarify that using automated-decision systems may violate California law if outcomes harm applicants or employees based on protected characteristics such as gender, race, or disability;
• Require employers to maintain employment records, including automated-decision data, for at least four years;
• Affirm that automated-decision assessments—such as tests, questionnaires, or puzzle games that reveal information about a disability—may constitute an unlawful medical inquiry; and
• Define key terms such as “automated-decision system,” “agent” and “proxy” to establish consistent standards.

CRC Councilmember Hellen Hong stated, “We are proud to update these rules to better protect Californians from potential employment discrimination posed by the widespread use of automated decision-making systems.”

Civil Rights Department Director Kevin Kish added, “These new regulations on artificial intelligence in the workplace aim to help our state’s antidiscrimination protections keep pace.”

Take-Aways:

Employers should review all AI tools used in hiring, promotions, and evaluations, require vendors to test for bias, and document compliance efforts.

For further information, please contact Tim Bowles, Cindy Bamforth or Helena Kobrin.

See also:

• Digital Diligence – AI Hiring Tools Must Avoid Discrimination (May 15, 2025)
• Older Workers are People Too – EEOC Settles Age Discrimination Claim Against Theatre Chain (May 9, 2025)
• Workplace Artificial Intelligence -- EEOC Goes Old School (May 26, 2023)

Cindy Bamforth
August 28, 2025

During the last two years, Columbia University has been regularly in the news for on-campus antisemitic protests. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission responded with charges to investigate any resulting civil rights abuses against the institution’s Jewish employees.

In the EEOC’s largest public settlement of the last 20 years – and “the most significant settlement for workers of any faith or religion” in the agency’s history – Columbia will create a $21 million claims fund for employees who suffered antisemitism after October 7, 2023, to be distributed based on claimants’ responses to a confidential questionnaire. The school will also pay a $200 million fine.

Targeting one or more employees with severe or pervasive verbal or physical harassment because of their religion creates a hostile work environment and is discrimination.

The EEOC’s Acting Chair, Andrea Lucas, said: “No employee should be subjected to harassment based on their faith . . ..”

Take-Aways:

Employers must not take religion-based adverse action against any employee or applicant or permit others to do so.

For further information, please contact Tim Bowles, Cindy Bamforth or Helena Kobrin.

See also:

• Religious Discrimination is No Vacation: EEOC is Suing Marriott for Failure to Accommodate Saturday Sabbath (May 16, 2025)
• Religious Ruling Favors Employees: Supreme Court Requires Accommodation unless Substantial Cost Burden (September 1, 2023)

Helena Kobrin
August 22, 2025

A company’s trademarks may well be its most valuable assets. A business must guard against those who may seek to profit on the goodwill of those brands, whether intentionally or not.

Brand protection begins with selecting a strong trademark that no one else is already using for the same or similar products or services. Then registering that mark helps the owner to shield against unauthorized use.

Not all chosen trademarks can be registered. Some marks are too similar to marks owned by others and used in the same field. Others are too generic or descriptive of products or services. For example, the US Patent and Trademark Office will reject an orchard owner’s generic Apple trademark, but a computer company was able to register and protect that mark. A trademark attorney can advise whether a mark is a good candidate for USPTO registration.

A registered trademark owner must file with the USPTO every few years to maintain protections. Calendars are highly recommended.

Our firm is available to aid in every aspect of this process.

Take-Aways:

Hire a qualified trademark attorney to help choose, register and maintain strong trademarks with the proper, timely USPTO filings.

For further information, please contact Tim Bowles, Cindy Bamforth or Helena Kobrin.

See also:

• The Annals of Trademark Number 3: Selecting a Trademark Part 2 Distinctiveness (November 4, 2014)
• The Annals of Trademark Number 2: Selecting a Mark Part 1 (October 24, 2014)
• The Annals of Trademark Number 1: What is a Trademark? (October 16, 2014)

Helena Kobrin
August 14, 2025

California requires employers to maintain accurate time records reflecting all hours worked, including start and end times of meal periods. Labor Code § 1174(d). In Donohue v. AMN Services, LLC (2021), the California Supreme Court held unequivocally:

• Employers may not round worker time punches for off-duty meal periods
• Rather, employers must record the actual start and end times of meal periods; and
• If time records fail to show compliant meal periods (missed, short, or late), employers face a rebuttable presumption of multiple Labor Code violations.

Even a few minutes' rounding is impermissible as meal period rights carry precise statutory thresholds, including a minimum 30-minute duration and start no later than the fifth full hour of work.

Compliance is not optional. Failure to create and preserve such records for at least three years creates management’s presumed failure to provide the minimum 30-minute, off-duty meal periods to every employee, creating possible liability for as many as four years of operation. Those consequences include (a) class action liability for such multiple violations, including one hour of premium pay per day per employee; and (b) liability under Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (PAGA) under a similar cascade of related violations.

Simple, inexpensive prevention measures can eliminate cash-mountains of necessary “cure” for such neglect. In one recent class action/PAGA action, with about 85 workers involved, analysis projected possible exposure of nearly $1,000,000 for management’s entirely avoidable lack of such exact records.

Take-Aways:

Apply compliance best practices, including:

1. Precise Timekeeping Systems: Ensure digital systems record daily minute-by-minute timestamps for all hours worked and, without rounding, off-duty meal periods;
2. Employee Attestations: Implement and maintain attestation prompts at clock-out for employees to confirm they took meal periods in full and on time;
3. Regular Audits: Perform regular time records audits for meal period compliance;
4. Training: Train managers and supervisors on proper meal period protocols and the importance of accurate timekeeping; and
5. Prompt Remediation: If violations are discovered, pay meal period premiums promptly and document.

For further information, please contact Tim Bowles, Cindy Bamforth or Helena Kobrin.

See also:

• Old School Is Punching Out - Deter Class Action Challenges by Digital Timekeeping (April 18, 2025)
• Workplace Roulette – Reducing the Odds of PAGA Purgatory (December 13, 2024)
• Munched for Lunch – No Break for Paying Employee’s Meal Times (September 20, 2024)
• Timekeeping Policy – Fourth Dimension Attention: It’s in the Cards (February 24, 2023)

Tim Bowles
August 8, 2025

California employers must provide additional “reporting time pay” to non-exempt (hourly) employees who report for scheduled work but then are given less than half of their shift.  The amount is at least two hours’ and no more than four hours’ pay at the regular rate. For a second reporting on the same workday, the employer must pay at least two additional hours at the regular rate.

Reporting time pay compensates employees for their time and effort in showing up, protects them from unpredictable schedules and lost wages, and encourages employers to provide proper scheduling notice. These rules shift the financial risk of business fluctuations to employers and discourage unexpected reductions in workers’ hours.

“Showing up” for work includes physically arriving at the workplace, logging in remotely, starting a driving route, or arriving at an offsite job location. Workers who call in to confirm their shift may also qualify as having reported, depending on employer requirements.

Employers must pay reporting time pay when they send a worker home early for reasons such as  lack of work, unsatisfactory job performance, or a failure to wear a uniform, but not when an employee voluntarily leaves early for illness or personal reasons—the key distinction is who initiates the early departure. Other exceptions to reporting time pay include employees on paid standby status and situations caused by events outside the employer’s control, such as emergencies, power outages, or threats to safety and property. Reporting time pay illustrations Scheduled Shift

Some California cities and counties, e.g. San Francisco, Los Angeles City and Los Angeles County, enforce “predictability pay” ordinances for designated large-scale industries that often require additional pay for last-minute schedule changes or cancellations and impose stricter rules than state law.

Take-Aways:

Employers should carefully track schedules, promptly notify workers of changes, and pay reporting time pay whenever required.

For further information, please contact Tim Bowles, Cindy Bamforth or Helena Kobrin.

See also:

• Paystub Purgatory – The PAGA Perils of Not Paying Attention (March 14, 2025)
• Workplace Roulette, Reducing the Odds of PAGA Purgatory (December 13, 2024)
• California Employers Must Pay Wages for Required Call-In to Confirm Day’s Work Schedule (March 13, 2019)

Cindy Bamforth
August 7, 2025

California and federal labor laws are designed to protect employees from unlawful discrimination. California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), signed into law in 1980 by then-Governor Jerry Brown, is the principal anti-discrimination law in California today.

The FEHA also established a policing agency, the Civil Rights Department (CRD). The department holds the power to investigate, mediate and prosecute discrimination complaints. Today, it is the largest civil rights agency among all fifty states.

California was not always known for its vigorous anti-discrimination efforts. In 1850, the new state legislature rescinded Native American claims on land and other rights of citizenship. African Americans were banned from homesteading public land, sending their children to public schools and using public transportation. In the 1920s and 30s, the sale or occupation of real property was restricted on the basis of race, ethnicity, religion and social class.

Anti-discrimination legislation was introduced in California in the mid-1940s and early 1950s, but failed to pass the state legislature. In 1959, however, the Fair Employment Practices Act and the Unruh Civil Rights Acts (named for its author, Jesse Unruh) were passed, barring discrimination in the workplace and declaring all Californians “free and equal.”

The Fair Employment and Housing Act was amended in 1992 to reflect federal anti-discrimination laws. The amendment permitted actual damages, punitive damages and reasonable attorneys’ fees to be awarded to the winners of discrimination lawsuits (except for lawsuits involving the State of California).

In 1993, the California Family Rights Act became law, granting “secure leave” rights to employees for the birth of a child, during placement of a child in the employee’s home for adoption or foster care, for the serious health condition of the employee’s child, parent or spouse, and for the employee’s own serious health condition. The CRD was given responsibility for enforcing this.

In 2024, a CRD discrimination lawsuit against Microsoft Corporation settled for $14.425 million, the largest on record. The case alleged violations of the California Family Rights Act, (CFRA), California’s Pregnancy Disability Leave law, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).

According to the CRD, Microsoft systematically disadvantaged employees who exercised their right to take protected leave. The department asserted that these employees received lower bonuses and unfavorable performance evaluations, negatively impacting their opportunities for merit-based pay increases, and career advancement. The lawsuit further alleged Microsoft failed to take adequate steps to prevent workplace discrimination, which affected the professional growth of women, individuals with disabilities, and other minority groups within the company.

Take-Aways:

California is widely recognized as one of the most employee-friendly states, offering comprehensive workplace protections. Employers are strongly encouraged to stay informed about evolving anti-discrimination laws, implementing compliant workplace policies, and providing regular training on discrimination awareness and prevention.

For further information, please contact Tim Bowles, Cindy Bamforth or Helena Kobrin.

See also:

• Majority Discrimination - US Supreme Court Levels the Playing Field (June 13, 2025)
• Digital Diligence: AI Hiring Tools Must Avoid Discrimination (May 15, 2025)
• Older Workers are People, Too: EEOC Settles Age Discrimination Claims Against Theatre Chain (May 9, 2025)
• Pregnancy Disability Leaves Policy (August 2, 2023)

Tim Bowles
August 1, 2025

California employers must meet strict deadlines for issuing final paychecks or face penalties – up to 30 days of the employee’s daily wage for each day of delay. The deadlines vary depending on termination or resignation.

Final Pay After Termination or Layoff: When an employer terminates or lays off an employee without a specific return date, the employer must provide the final paycheck immediately at the place of employment. The payment must include all earned wages, accrued vacation, and any other compensation owed. Expense reimbursements may be paid on the regular schedule.

Final Pay for Voluntary Quit or Retirement: If an employee gives at least 72 hours' notice before quitting or retiring, the employer must issue the final paycheck on the last day of work. If the employee leaves without such advance notice, the employer must deliver final wages within 72 clock-hours of departure.

Mailing and Direct Deposit: If an employee quits without notice and requests the paycheck by mail to a designated address, payment is considered made on the date of mailing. Employers may use direct deposit for final pay, whether resignation or termination, if the employee consents and the employer deposits the funds on time.

Industry-Specific Exceptions: Certain industries, including seasonal agriculture, the motion picture industry, and oil drilling, may follow alternative final pay timelines.

Individual Liability: Individuals acting on the employer’s behalf, i.e., owners, directors, officers, or managing agents, can be held personally liable for late wage payments.

Take-Aways:

California employers should comply with final pay rules to avoid unnecessary legal and financial exposure.

For further information, please contact Tim Bowles, Cindy Bamforth or Helena Kobrin.

See also:

• Paystub Purgatory - The PAGA Perils of Not Paying Attention (March 14, 2025)
• Nailing Goodbye – Employee Terminations Dos and Don’t (September 15, 2021)

Cindy Bamforth
July 25, 2025