Click here to subscribe to our Bowles Law e-letter
Click here to subscribe to our Bowles Law e-letter
Beginning July 1, 2024, most California employers must establish a Workplace Violence Prevention Plan (WVPP) for each work site, provide violence prevention training, and maintain incident logs and records of investigations and hazard assessments.
Beginning July 1, 2024, most California employers must establish a Workplace Violence Prevention Plan (WVPP) for each work site, provide violence prevention training, and maintain incident logs and records of investigations and hazard assessments.
Employers must annually review and update their WVPP to address new risks and employee feedback and provide retraining that covers:
Cal/OSHA provides helpful resources, e.g., an employer fact sheet, a model WVPP, and FAQs.
Take-Aways:
Employers must update their WVPP annually to address new hazards and feedback and provide proper retraining to all employees.
For further information, please contact Tim Bowles, Cindy Bamforth or Helena Kobrin.
See also:
Cindy Bamforth
June 26, 2025
Effective July 1, 2025, several California cities and counties will implement increases to their local minimum wage rates.
Effective July 1, 2025, several California cities and counties will implement increases to their local minimum wage rates.
Covered employers are required to conspicuously post the current wage notice, which can be downloaded using the links above.
For employers with remote workers in multiple locations, different minimum wage rates may apply depending on the jurisdiction. To simplify compliance, employers may choose to pay the highest applicable rate across all locations.
To keep track of interim updates, see the UC Berkeley Center for Labor Research and Education.
See also:
Helena Kobrin
Daniska Coronado
June 19, 2025
InAmes v. Ohio Dept. of Youth Services(Ames), the United States Supreme Court unanimously overturned a higher standard that some federal appeals courts were imposing on majority group members claiming workplace discrimination.
In Ames v. Ohio Dept. of Youth Services (Ames), the United States Supreme Court unanimously overturned a higher standard that some federal appeals courts were imposing on majority group members claiming workplace discrimination.
To pursue a claim, plaintiffs must make an initial prima facie showing that the facts fulfill basic legal elements. For example, to maintain a suit for unpaid wages, a worker would have to assert s/he was defendant's employee, performed work, and was not paid or paid too little.
A federal prima facie case of employment discrimination or "disparate treatment" requires the plaintiff to show the employer had a discriminatory motive for an action such as hiring, firing, disciplining or not promoting him or her.
In Ohio federal court, Ms. Ames, a heterosexual woman, met that prime facie standard by showing she was denied a promotion and then demoted in favor of homosexual persons in two instances. However, the trial court, upheld by the appeals court, required her to also show that "[b]ackground circumstances support the suspicion that the defendant is that unusual employer who discriminates against the majority."
Rejecting that extra step in Ames, Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote:
Title VII's disparate-treatment provision draws no distinctions between majority-group plaintiffs and minority-group plaintiffs. Rather, the provision makes it unlawful "to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin."
Justice Sotomayor also stated that "by establishing the same protections for every 'individual'--without regard to that individual's membership in a minority or majority group--Congress left no room for courts to impose special requirements on majority-group plaintiffs alone." Courts therefore may no longer impose the additional requirement on majority plaintiffs.
Take-Away:
Employment discrimination against any protected group, whether majority or minority, is illegal under both federal and state law. Decisions on such things as hiring, firing, compensation, and discipline must be made based on ability, education, longevity, behavior and other business-related factors, not on an employee's or potential employee's protected characteristics.
For further information, please contact Tim Bowles, Cindy Bamforth or Helena Kobrin.
See also:
Helena Kobrin
June 13, 2025
"[M]en must be left without interference ... to discharge or retain employees at will for good cause or for no cause, or even for bad cause without thereby being guilty of an unlawful act per se. It is a right which an employee may exercise in the same way, to the same extent, for the same cause or want of cause as the employer.Payne v. Western & Atlantic Railroad, 81 Tenn. 507 (1884).
"[M]en must be left without interference ... to discharge or retain employees at will for good cause or for no cause, or even for bad cause without thereby being guilty of an unlawful act per se. It is a right which an employee may exercise in the same way, to the same extent, for the same cause or want of cause as the employer. Payne v. Western & Atlantic Railroad, 81 Tenn. 507 (1884).
The kernel thus planted in Tennessee some 140 years back, "at will" employment has evolved in every American state except Montana as the right of either employer or employee to terminate their relationship for any or no reason at any time, with or without advance notice.
Yet, the principle has changed significantly over the past century.
Addressing the realities of unequal bargaining power between management and rank-and-file workers, the 1935 National Labor Relations Act banned terminating employees for their union membership or other pro-union support. In the same period, organized labor's growing influence established standing employment contracts in key industries that required "good cause" justification for a union member's termination. Similar "good cause" requirements have evolved to protect government employees.
The landmark Civil Rights Act of 1964 signaled further (and overdue) protections against management's unquestioned abilities to end employment relationships, making it illegal to terminate for the race, color, sex, national origin or religion of the worker. The Act's principle of "classifications" protected from workplace discrimination has since grown to an extensive list under federal and state laws. These include the federal Age Discrimination Employment Act shielding employees 40-plus years old and the Americans with Disabilities Act similarly safeguarding disabled workers otherwise qualified to competently perform assigned labors.
Thus, while "at will" is still the presumed employment relationship in California, 48 other states and the District of Columbia, termination for "any reason" no longer means what it did in the 19th Century. Termination for "any reason except those found by Congress, a state legislature or the courts to be an illegal reason" would be more accurate.
For further information, please contact Tim Bowles, Cindy Bamforth or Helena Kobrin.
See also:
Tim Bowles
June 6, 2025
CalSavers' mandatory state-run Roth IRA program enables employee retirement savings through automatic payroll deductions. Employers face no fees or contribution requirements, while eligible employees can opt out or change their contributions at any time.
CalSavers' mandatory state-run Roth IRA program enables employee retirement savings through automatic payroll deductions. Employers face no fees or contribution requirements, while eligible employees can opt out or change their contributions at any time.
Registration deadlines depend on the number of employees:
Under Senate Bill 1126, California employers with up to four employees must register by December 31, 2025, unless they:
If they miss their deadline, employers face a penalty of $250 per eligible employee, increasing to $500 after 180 days.
Take-Aways:
By year-end, small employers must either request an exemption or register to enroll eligible employees and set up payroll deductions.
For further information, please contact Tim Bowles, Cindy Bamforth or Helena Kobrin.
See also:
Cindy Bamforth
June 6, 2025
Company A has a low-performing employee, Worker 1, who is also rude and threatening and resists correction. Should Company A: (1) allow Worker 1 to continue to cause chaos to avoid a lawsuit if it terminates Worker 1; (2) try to get Worker 1 under control; or (3) terminate Worker 1 with an offer of severance in exchange for a release?
Company A has a low-performing employee, Worker 1, who is also rude and threatening and resists correction. Should Company A: (1) allow Worker 1 to continue to cause chaos to avoid a lawsuit if it terminates Worker 1; (2) try to get Worker 1 under control; or (3) terminate Worker 1 with an offer of severance in exchange for a release?
Option 1 is disruptive to company morale and performance and unacceptable. If Company A has tried Option 2 with well-documented efforts at correction to no avail, then Option 3 can be a good method of regaining peace and productivity while eliminating potential suits for discrimination, retaliation, wrongful termination, disputed wage claims and the like. Company A would offer a severance amount -- above all earned wages and accrued vacation pay -- commensurate with time of service and contributions. To receive that additional benefit, Worker 1 will agree in a binding contract never to file or pursue such claims, real or imagined, known or unknown, against Company A.
If an employer approaches this task with care, including a well-planned exit interview, most departing workers will agree to the package, ending uncertainty for both parties.
To ensure the waiver applies to age discrimination claims, if Company A has 20 or more employees and Worker 1 was 40 or over, Company A must allow the worker (1) up to 21 days to consider and sign the waiver and the opportunity to have it reviewed by an attorney; and (2) seven more days after accepting to change his/her mind and rescind the agreement. Although that employer must wait the 21 days to withdraw the offer, the worker can agree and sign on the spot or at any time before the three weeks is up.
Some employers pay the severance amount as soon as the ink dries. Others wait for the seven-day recission period to expire. While rescission is rare, paying on signing carries some risk, since it may be impossible to recover that severance money from the rescinding former employee.
If a business has fewer than 20 on payroll and/or the departing worker is under age 40, the 21-day waiting and seven-day rescission periods are not required. However, California law does require a five-day waiting period for such workers.
The Bowles Law employment forms package includes an overview memo on severance offers, short and long form sample severance agreements, and a sample termination letter. We can help with forms for specific terminations. Ensuring proper written workplace policies, procedures and template forms are implemented can go a long way to preventing dubious suits from former employees intent on retribution.
Take-Away:
While it may be unpopular with managers to offer a troublesome employee severance upon termination, paying that extra amount under a well-worded agreement is an employer's "insurance policy" against a possible suit nearly guaranteed to cost more in company time, disruption, and attorney fees.
For further information, please contact Tim Bowles, Cindy Bamforth or Helena Kobrin.
See also:
Helena Kobrin
May 30, 2025
Whileairlines are relatively coolonqualified emotional support animals, employers need only bend to the trend if federal or state disability discrimination laws are in play.
While airlines are relatively cool on qualified emotional support animals, employers need only bend to the trend if federal or state disability discrimination laws are in play.
Employers of course have the prerogative of barring employee pets from the workplace. However, circumstances may require management to explore reasonable accommodation where the request is framed as a worker's need for a "service animal" or "emotional support animal" under the federal Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) or California's Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA). No accommodation is required if it amounts to "undue hardship" or legitimate countervailing business concerns such as safety, health, and operational disruption.
The federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) defines service animals "as dogs that are individually trained to do work or perform tasks for people with disabilities. Examples of such work or tasks include guiding people who are blind, alerting people who are deaf, pulling a wheelchair, alerting and protecting a person who is having a seizure ... Service animals are working animals, not pets." Emphasis supplied.
The U.S. Service Animals organization tells us "[a]n emotional support animal (ESA) is a companion animal that many individuals may need to help relieve symptoms of certain mental health conditions. [They] are typically dogs or cats, but other animals such as miniature horses or even pigs may find a place as support animals." Emphasis supplied.
The ADA defines "reasonable accommodation" broadly but does not explicitly require employers to allow service animals or emotional support animals in the workplace. However, if an employee with a disability requests this, management must engage in an interactive process to determine whether the accommodation is necessary and reasonable.
Combining service and emotional support under "assistive animals," California's Civil Rights Department advises allowing an animal in the workplace may constitute a reasonable accommodation under FEHA, provided the request is supported by documentation showing that the animal alleviates one or more symptoms of the employee's disability.
Take-Aways:
Employers must assess animal-at-work requests on a case-by-case basis, weighing employee needs against workplace impact. Best practices include
● Interactive Process: Engage in good faith discussions to evaluate the request and explore alternatives;
● Documentation: Unless grounds are obvious, ask for medical documentation supporting the need for the animal;
● Trial Periods: Temporary or trial accommodations may help assess whether the presence of an animal causes hardship; and
● Workplace Policies: Develop written policies regarding workplace animals to ensure consistency and compliance.
For further information, please contact Tim Bowles, Cindy Bamforth or Helena Kobrin.
See also:
Tim Bowles
May 30, 2025
Settling a lawsuitby theEqual Employment Opportunity Commission(EEOC), The Results Companies, LLC in Fort Lauderdale, has agreed to pay $250,000 for refusing to accommodate a blind new hire who asked for ascreen readerto enable her work as a telephone customer service agent. She had requested the company consult with her screen reader software publisher and her vocational counselor. The company fired her instead.
Settling a lawsuit by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), The Results Companies, LLC in Fort Lauderdale, has agreed to pay $250,000 for refusing to accommodate a blind new hire who asked for a screen reader to enable her work as a telephone customer service agent. She had requested the company consult with her screen reader software publisher and her vocational counselor. The company fired her instead.
Federal (and state) law requires employers to engage in an interactive process with disabled employees requesting reasonable accommodations so they can work. Employers are excused only if such an accommodation would be an undue hardship.
The EEOC charged Results with not attempting to reasonably accommodate the worker so she could perform the job, in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). In addition to the $250,000 payment, the settlement requires Results to implement protocols to address disability accommodation requests and train employees on ADA requirements.
An EEOC trial attorney, Alexa Lang, said, "Accommodating employees who are blind with screen reader software such as JAWS (Job Access With Speech) is not automatically an undue hardship. Employers must meaningfully assess their technical capabilities and available resources."
Take-Away:
An employer fielding a disabled worker's accommodation request must document its interactive process to determine whether a reasonable accommodation is feasible short of undue company hardship. By the lesson The Results Companies learned, providing screen reader software to a blind or visually impaired person may be such accommodation.
For further information, please contact Tim Bowles, Cindy Bamforth or Helena Kobrin.
See also:
Helena Kobrin
May 23, 2025
The federalEqual Employment Opportunity Commissionhassued two Marriott entitiesin Orlando,alleging discriminationfor requiring a Seventh-Day Adventist sales executive to work Saturdays, her Sabbath. The agency charges Marriott initially honored the employee's accommodation request but revoked it over her objection after a management change. The suit claims the employer also altered her work schedule in ways that negatively impacted sales and commissions, compelling her to resign.
The federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has sued two Marriott entities in Orlando, alleging discrimination for requiring a Seventh-Day Adventist sales executive to work Saturdays, her Sabbath. The agency charges Marriott initially honored the employee's accommodation request but revoked it over her objection after a management change. The suit claims the employer also altered her work schedule in ways that negatively impacted sales and commissions, compelling her to resign.
While Marriott will likely assert continuing accommodation imposed an "undue hardship" on its operations, establishing that defense has become an uphill battle. For decades, courts found "more than de minimis" (trivial) cost amounted to ample hardship under federal Title VII. The Supreme Court's 2023 Groff v. DeJoy decision now requires an employer to show accommodation imposes a substantial burden "in the overall context of an employer's business," i.e., notably increased costs or operational difficulties, not just minimal inconvenience. See, Religious Rulings Favors Employees; Supreme Court Requires Accommodation Unless Substantial Cost Burden (September 1, 2023).
California employers face an even higher standard. Under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), "undue hardship" means a significant difficulty or expense, considering seven factors, including business size, composition of the workforce, company budget, reasonable notice to the employer and any available reasonable alternative means of accommodation.
Take Aways:
Best practices include: ● regularly re-examine religious accommodations to ensure consistency, especially after leadership changes; ● train managers on the burdens necessary to meet the undue hardship test; ● document every step of the accommodation process; and ● in California recognize the FEHA bar on accommodation is high, and compliance is not optional.
For more information on our help with such audits, please contact Tim Bowles, Cindy Bamforth or Helena Kobrin.
See also:
● Religious Objection to Mandatory Fingerprinting -Employer Must Properly Address Faith-Based Protest (March 9, 2018)
● Accommodating Religious Practices (June, 2015)
● Employer Duties to Fight Religious Prejudice (May 2014)
● Religious Institutions and Employment Discrimination - U.S. Supreme Court Rules Ministers May Not Sue (February 16, 2012)
Tim Bowles
May 16, 2025