Last October, Governor Newsom signed SB 525, which enacted a multi-tiered statewide minimum wage schedule for healthcare workers. However, in light of a significant budget shortfall, the Governor called for changes to the statute including a delay in the effective date.

Although the law was set to take effect June 1, the legislature only proposed a potential delay on May 20th, which was quickly moved through the legislature to the Governor.

Under SB 828, the initial effect date of June 1, is changed to July 1, 2024. And thereafter all increases would occur on July 1, instead of June 1.

The bill has an urgency clause and therefore takes effect immediately.

If you have questions about SB 828 or the health care minimum wage, contact a Jackson Lewis attorney to discuss.

California Employer Identification Number (EIN)

All employers in California must obtain an EIN by filing a DE-1 Registration Form with the Employment Development Department (EDD). The EIN serves as the state equivalent of the federal tax identification number. The EIN is essential for reporting employment taxes and complying with other state requirements.

Workers’ Compensation Insurance Coverage

California requires that all employers either have workers’ compensation insurance or be authorized to self-insure. Failure to comply with this requirement may subject an employer to penalties. 

Required Registration, Certification, or Licensing for Certain Industries

In California, certain industries require employers to be registered, certified, or licensed through various state agencies prior to operating a business. The California Division of Labor Standards Enforcement provides licensing or registration for the following industries:

• Farm Labor Contractors
• Garment Manufacturers
• Talent Agents
• Employers of Industrial Homeworkers
• Sheltered Workshops
• Studio Teachers
• Car Washes

If you have questions about expanding into California as an employer, contact a Jackson Lewis attorney to help ensure you are taking all appropriate steps under the law.

The ordinance takes effect July 1, 2025.

Covered Employers

The ordinance applies to retail employers who:

• Are identified as a retail business in the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) within the retail trade categories and subcategories 44 through 45; or any business, including non-profit organizations, whose revenues are generated mainly from the sale to end users of tangible products that are primarily for personal, household, or family purposes, including, but not limited to, appliances, clothing, electronics, groceries, and household items;
• Directly, indirectly, or through an agent or any other person, including through the services of a contractor, temporary service, or staffing agency, exercises control over the wages, hours, or working conditions of any retail employee; and
• Employ 300 or more employees globally.

Covered Employees

The ordinance applies to retail employees who:

• In a particular workweek performs at least 2 hours of work within the unincorporated areas of the county for a retail employer (check the County’s page to determine whether a workplace is in unincorporated areas of the county);
• Qualifies as an employee entitled to payment of a minimum wage from a covered employer under the California minimum wage law as provided under California Labor Code section 1197 and wage orders published by the California Industrial Welfare Commission; and
• Is assigned a primary work location and duties that support retail operations, including, but not limited to, a retail store or warehouse.

Obligations of Covered Employers

Per the ordinance, covered employers must provide the covered employee with a written good-faith estimate of a work schedule before hiring. The good faith estimate must include a notice of rights under the ordinance.

If a covered employee’s hours, day, location, or shifts worked substantially deviate from the good faith estimate, the employer must have a documented, legitimate business reason, unknown at the time the estimate was provided.

A covered employer must provide notice of a covered employee’s schedule at least 14 days before the start of the work period either by posting or transmitting by electronic means.

Before a retail employer may hire new employees or use a contractor or similar, the retail employer must first offer work to current employees if:

• One or more employees are qualified to do the work and
• The additional work hours would not result in the payment of a premium rate under California law.

Covered employers must not schedule covered employees to work a shift that starts less than 10 hours from the end of their last shift unless they obtain written consent from the employee and pay the employee a premium of time and a half for each hour of the second shift.

Predictability Pay

Covered employers must provide Predictability Pay under the following conditions:

• Compensate a covered employee with one additional hour of pay at the employee’s regular rate for each change to their work schedule that results in no loss of time to the employee or results in additional work time that exceeds 15 minutes.
• Compensate a covered employee at one-half the employee’s regular rate of pay for the time the employee does not work for the following reasons if occurring after the advanced notice required under the ordinance:
  • Subtracting hours from a shift before or after the employee reports for duty;
  • Changing the start or end time of a shift results in a loss of more than 15 minutes;
  • Changing the date of a shift;
  • Cancelling a shift; or
  • Schedule the covered employee for an on-call shift in which the employee is not called in.

Whereas, Predictability Pay is not required under the following conditions:

• A covered employee requested a schedule change;
• A covered employee accepts a schedule change initiated by the employer due to the absence of another employee;
• The employee accepts additional hours offered under the ordinance; or
• The employee’s hours are reduced due to the employee’s violation of an existing law or policy.

Notice and Recordkeeping Requirements

Retail employers must post notice of the covered employee’s workweek rights which will be published by the Department of Consumer & Business Affairs.

Retail employers must retain all records required under the ordinance for both current and former employees for 3 years.

If you have questions about the Los Angeles County Fair Workweek or related issues, contact a Jackson Lewis attorney to discuss.

The underlying action was a class action brought by former and current employees of Spectrum Security for meal period violations. The class sought waiting time penalties and penalties for failure to provide accurate wage statements.

The case was remanded to the California Court of Appeal on two issues:

1. Whether the trial court erred in finding Spectrum Security had not acted “willfully” in failing to timely pay employees premium pay, which barred recovery of waiting time penalties.
2. Whether Spectrum Security’s failure to report missed-break premium pay on wage statements was “knowing and intentional” to allow recovery of penalties for failure to provide accurate wage statements.

The Court of Appeal concluded as to the first question that the substantial evidence supported the trial court’s finding that Spectrum Security presented defenses at trial in good faith for its failure to pay meal premium to departing employees and therefore its failure was not “willful” to entitle employees to waiting time penalties. As to the second question the Court of Appeal held that because Spectrum Security had a good faith belief that it complied with wage statement requirements, the trial court was precluded from finding the violation was “knowing and intentional” and awarding penalties.

In its second opinion on Naranjo issued on May 6, 2024, the California Supreme Court stated, “[o]n remand, the answer to the question of Labor Code section 203 penalties was clear. Under long-established law, an employer cannot incur civil or criminal penalties for the willful nonpayment of wages when the employer reasonably and in good faith disputes that wages are due...”

However, as the California Supreme Court noted in its decision, the courts have been divided over whether an employer’s good faith belief will also bar Labor Code section 226 penalties for a “knowing and intentional” failure to report the same unpaid wages or any other required information, on a wage statement.

The California Supreme Court agreed with the Court of Appeal below that if an employer reasonably and in good faith believed it was providing a complete and accurate wage statement in compliance with the requirements of section 226, then it has not knowingly and intentionally failed to comply with the wage statement law.

This decision is a bright spot for employers trying to comply with the myriad of California wage and hour laws. While the language of the statute has always stated that penalties could only be recovered for “knowing and intentional” violations, in light of this decision, employers that can demonstrate a good faith belief in the accuracy of their wage statements now can forcefully argue that there was no failure to comply with wage statement law, and thus no penalty should apply.

If you have questions about the latest decision by the California Supreme Court or related issues, contact a Jackson Lewis attorney to discuss.

The new minimum wage applied to clinicians, nurses, certified nursing assistants, aides, technicians, maintenance workers, janitorial or housekeeping staff, groundskeepers, guards, food services workers, laundry workers, and pharmacists but does not include managers or supervisors.

The California Hospital Association challenged the law and recently the district court struck portions of the ordinance as preempted by the National Labor Relations Act. The judgment strikes sections 8-152 (c) – (d), which prohibits the employer from funding the minimum wage increases required by the ordinance by:

• Reducing premium pay or shift differentials
• Reducing benefits such as vacation and healthcare
• Reducing hours worked
• Laying off workers
• Increasing charges to workers such as for parking.

It is possible the City of Inglewood could appeal the decision of the Court, though no appeal has been filed to date.

Meanwhile, the Governor’s push to delay the state-wide healthcare minimum wage is still in limbo. To date, the healthcare minimum wage increase statewide will take effect June 1.

Jackson Lewis will continue to monitor developments related to the healthcare worker minimum wage ordinances and statute. If you have questions about the Inglewood ordinance or related issues with healthcare minimum wage contact a Jackson Lewis attorney to discuss.

Instructions and resources for employers who are required to report are on the OLSE’s website.

Which Employers Must Comply With The Fair Chance Ordinance?

San Francisco’s Fair Chance Ordinance (FCO) applies to employers with five or more employees worldwide, as well as employers of any size who contract with the City and County of San Francisco. Similar to the State of California’s Fair Chance Act, the FCO prohibits covered employers from asking job applicants for positions that require at least eight hours of work per week in San Francisco about arrest or conviction records until after a conditional offer of employment is issued.  In addition, the FCO prohibits covered employers from considering certain facts during the application process, including whether a job applicant’s history includes an arrest that did not lead to a conviction.

The annual reporting requirements include disclosing the number of employees the employer hired to work in San Francisco in 2023, whether the employer conducted background checks of job applicants, and whether the employer hired anyone who had a conviction history.

Which Employers Must Comply with the Health Care Security Ordinance?

The Health Care Security Ordinance (HCSO) applies to private and non-profit employers who employ any individual in San Francisco, and twenty or more workers, or in the case of non-profits, 50 or more workers, inside or outside of San Francisco.  Under the HCSO covered employers must spend a minimum amount set by law on healthcare for each employee who works eight or more hours each week in San Francisco.

The reporting requirement includes disclosing the number of individuals employed in each quarter of 2023, the number of employees covered by the HCSO in each of those quarters, the employer’s total spending on healthcare, and the types of healthcare coverage the employer offered to employees.

If you have questions about reporting requirements for or your organization’s compliance with, the FCO or HCSO, reach out to a Jackson Lewis attorney to discuss.

• Overview of the Minimum Wage Increases
• Who is covered by the law
• The role of the fast-food council in addition to minimum wage

The FAQ highlights important aspects of the new fast-food minimum wage statute:

Posting Requirements

There is a supplemental posting to the minimum wage order that must be posted by covered employers. The supplemental posting is available on the Labor Commissioner’s page.

Covered Employees

The FAQs reiterate the definition of “fast-food restaurant employees” as follows:

 The law applies only to employees of “fast food restaurants.” To be considered a fast food restaurant, the restaurant must meet ALL of the below criteria:

1. The restaurant must be a “limited-service restaurant” in California. A limited service restaurant is one that offers limited or no table service, where the customers order food or beverage items and pay for those items before the items are consumed.
2. The restaurant is part of a restaurant chain of at least 60 establishments nationwide. An establishment is a single restaurant location offering food or beverages to customers. Off-site business locations (geographically separate from a restaurant location), at which employees perform administrative, warehouse, or preparatory food production tasks, are not counted as “establishments” toward the 60 establishment minimum.
3. The restaurant is primarily engaged in selling food and beverages for immediate consumption.

Employees who work at different locations of the same fast food restaurant chain may not both be covered if one of the locations is exempt from the law, such as if just one location produces bread on-site.

Importantly, the FAQs confirm that the minimum wage set by the statute impacts the minimum salary threshold to be an exempt employee under California law. Under state law, the minimum salary threshold is currently $66,560 but it is now $83,200 for restaurant employees. However, if the exempt employee is working at a larger store with a fast-food component and other aspects, the FAQs provide that a blended rate may be appropriate between the fast food and non-fast food work calculated on a weekly basis based on the percentage of time spent on those tasks. An example is provided in the FAQs but employers should consult counsel if they decide to move forward with this blended rate approach.  

Fast Food Council

Though the minimum wage has been the most highly publicized aspect of the law, the Council will also meet regularly to develop other minimum employment standards for the fast food industry in California.

***

If you have questions about California’s fast food minimum wage or related issues, contact a Jackson Lewis attorney to discuss.

Assembly Bill (AB) 2751 would mandate that employers establish policies that allow employees to disconnect from employment communications during non-working hours.

Under the proposed law, employers would not be permitted to contact the employees outside of working hours except in the event of an “emergency” or “scheduling.”

Under the bill, an emergency is defined as “an unforeseen situation that threatens an employee, customer, or the public; disrupts or shuts down operations; or causes physical or environmental damage.”

Employees could file complaints with the California Labor Commissioner for alleged violations, and a pattern of violations would be punishable as a misdemeanor and a fine of not less than $100.00.

In its current form, the bill does not apply to employees covered by a valid collective bargaining agreement.

AB 2751 is still in the committee stages of the legislative process with this year’s legislative session ending on August 31, 2024.

Jackson Lewis will continue to track this and other legislation that affects employers in the Golden State. If you have questions about AB 2751 or related issues, contact a Jackson Lewis attorney to discuss.

Recently, Cal/OSHA published a Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) page to assist with compliance.

The FAQ reviews the following:

• Definitions under the statute
• Employer applicability
• Requirements for the WVPP
• Violent Incident Logs
• Training
• Recordkeeping
• Effective date

While many questions remain, employers should take note of Cal/OSHA’s position on some issues in the FAQ:

1. Employers need to provide initial training under their WVPP by July 1, 2024, when enforcement commences.
2. Employers must ensure their written WVPP “is specific to the hazards and corrective measures for each work area and operation” and not a top-down “corporate plan.”
3. Animal attacks and other “acts of violence or threat of violence” are included in the definition of workplace violence under the legislation.

If you have questions about compliance with SB 553 or related issues, contact a Jackson Lewis attorney to discuss.

In the underlying action, employees were working on a solar power facility located on privately owned land that had limited access on and off the highway.  As a result, the employees’ entry was sometimes delayed, with having to go through gates, security checkpoint (s) (which moved during the scope of the project) and having to drive slowly to protect endangered species in the area.

The first question from the 9^th Circuit was: Is time spent on an employer’s premises in a personal vehicle and waiting to scan an identification badge, have a security guard peer into the vehicle, and then exit the security gate compensable as “hours worked”?

To this question, the California Supreme Court held that time spent on an employer’s premises awaiting and undergoing an employer-mandated exit procedure was compensable as “hours worked.”

The second question: Is time spent on the employer’s premises in a personal vehicle, driving between the security gate and the employee parking lots subject to certain rules from the employer “hours worked”?

The California Supreme Court stated to the second question that travel time from the security gate to employee parking lots is compensable if the security gate was the first location where the employee was required for an employment-related reason. However, this travel time is not counted as work hours because an employer’s standard rules during employees’ drive to the worksite in a personal vehicle do not establish sufficient employer control.

The Court stated in its opinion, “We decline to reduce the control test to a categorical rule of compensability for any time that an employee spends traveling on work premises. Rules designed to ensure safe, lawful, and orderly conduct while traveling on an employer’s premises, such as the general Site rules and the ‘rules of the road’ at issue here, do not impose a level of control that renders the time compensable. ... Because an employee’s drive on the access road is not a form of exertion that a manager would recognize as work on the Site, the drive time is not compensable under the suffer or permit clause.”

The third question: Is time spent on the employer’s premises, when workers are prohibited from leaving but not required to engage in employer-mandated activities, hours worked when it is designated as an unpaid meal period under a qualifying collective bargaining agreement (CBA)?

For the final question, the California Supreme Court held that when an employee is covered by a CBA that complies with Labor Code section 512 and the wage orders and provides the employee with an unpaid meal period that time is nonetheless compensable as “hours worked” if the employer prohibits the employees from leaving the employer’s premises or designated area during the meal period and if the prohibition prevents the employee from engaging in otherwise feasible personal activities.  

However, the Court stated “[w]e interpret Wage Order No. 16, section 10(D) and (E) to permit employees to bargain for a voluntary paid on-duty meal period. In other words, an exemption from section 10(D) permits workers to negotiate a contract for on-duty meal periods even when “the nature of the work” does not “prevent[] the employee from being relieved of all duty.”

If you have questions about the application of the California Supreme Court’s decision or related issues, contact a Jackson Lewis attorney to discuss.

Last year, Newsom signed AB 1228, which repeals the FAST Recovery Act but establishes a modified version of the Fast Food Council (Council) until January 1, 2029. The bill also sets forth the minimum wage increases for fast food workers, with an increase to $20.00 effective April 1, 2024. 

The bill includes an urgency clause which means it takes effect immediately. As such the exempted businesses will not need to comply with the minimum wage requirements past in 2023.

If you have questions about AB 610 or related issues, contact a Jackson Lewis attorney to discuss.

The Fair Chance Ordinance (FCO) applies to employers with 5 or more employees in unincorporated areas of Los Angeles County.

The ordinance takes effect March 28, 2024, and is operative September 3, 2024.  

The following is a summary of some of the ordinance’s requirements.

Job Postings

Under the FCO employers shall not prevent or discourage applicants or employees with criminal history from applying or responding to job solicitations, postings, announcements, and advertisements (together referred to as “job postings”) including:

• Include in all job postings language stating that qualified applicants with arrest or conviction records will be considered for employment.
• Shall not include statements in job postings that no person with a criminal history will be considered for hire or should not apply.
• Specify in all job postings any local, state, or federal laws that impose restrictions or prohibit the hiring of individuals with specified criminal history.
• Specify in the job postings the employer’s intention, if any, to conduct a review of an employee’s criminal history in connection with a conditional offer and include a list of all material job duties of the specific job position which the employer reasonably believes that the criminal history may have a direct, adverse and negative relationship potentially resulting in the withdrawal of the conditional offer of employment.

Background Checks

Covered employers are prohibited from inquiring about criminal history prior to extending an applicant or employee a conditional offer of employment unless legally required to do so. This includes not asking or encouraging an applicant or employee to disclose information about their criminal history or rejecting applications because criminal history was not provided.

If conducting a background check after a conditional offer, the employer must provide notice in writing that includes the following:

• A statement that the conditional offer of employment is contingent upon the review of the individual’s criminal history.
• A statement that the employer has good cause to conduct a review of criminal history for the specific job position with supporting justification. A general statement without supporting justification is not deemed sufficient.
• A complete list of all types of information, background, or history that will be reviewed in addition to the applicants’ or employees’ criminal history, including but not limited to education, social media history, employment history, motor vehicle or driving history, reference checks, credit history, license or credential verification, drug testing, or medical examinations.

In obtaining a criminal background check, an employer may not ask the applicant or employee to provide information orally or in writing regarding the applicant or employee’s criminal history, unresolved arrests, or prior convictions, including asking the applicant or employee to fill out a criminal history questionnaire, prior to the employer’s receipt of the criminal background check report.  Such report must be provided to the applicant or employee before an employer discusses any criminal history information, or requests further criminal history information from, the applicant or employee.

If an employer intends to deny an applicant or employee a position of employment, rescind a condition offer, or take any other adverse action against an employee solely or in part because of the applicant’s criminal history, the employer must first conduct an initial individualized assessment that is documented in writing, of whether the applicant’s criminal history has a direct adverse and negative bearing on the applicant’s ability to perform the duties necessary for the position.

Preliminary Notice and Notice of Adverse Action

If after the initial individualized assessment, the employer intends to withdraw or rescind a conditional offer of employment and/or take any other adverse employment action, the employer shall provide the applicant or employee with a preliminary notice of the adverse action, which must be sent by both regular mail and email, if an email address is available, and contain the following:

• Notice of intent to withdraw or rescind condition offer of employment and/or take any other adverse employment action due to criminal history.
• An explanation of the applicant’s right to respond to the notice before the decision becomes final, including the waiting periods and timelessness to respond as specified in the FCO.
• A copy of the initial individualized assessment
• Notice of the disqualifying convictions
• A copy of the criminal background check report

The employer must give the applicant or employee five business days to respond to the preliminary notice of adverse action before making a final decision.  The applicant or employee must be given at least ten additional business days either: (a) to respond to the preliminary notice if the applicant notifies the employer in writing that they dispute the accuracy of the background check and is taking steps to obtain evidence or needs additional time to obtain written evidence if rehabilitation or mitigating circumstances, or (b) to present evidence of rehabilitation or mitigating circumstances orally at a meeting between the applicant or employee and the employer.

The employer must consider all of the information and documents, whether written or oral, timely submitted before making a final decision or taking an adverse action and the employer must complete a second individualized assessment.  If after a second individualized assessment, the employer makes the final decision to withdraw the conditional offer or take adverse employment action, the employer shall notify the applicant or employee by both regular mail and electronic mail of the following:

• Notice that the employer has made a final decision to withdraw the conditional offer
• A copy of the second individualized assessment
• Notice of the disqualifying conviction
• Information regarding existing procedures the employer has for the applicant to challenge the decision or request reconsideration.
• Notice of the applicant’s or employee’s right to file a complaint with the Los Angeles County Department of Consumer & Business Affairs.

The employer must provide the final notice of adverse action within 30 calendar days after the applicant or employee timely responds to the preliminary notice.  Otherwise, it will be presumed the delay was untimely and in violation of the section. In order to rebut this presumption, the employer must provide a written explanation justifying the delay.

Recordkeeping

Employers must maintain and preserve any and all records relating to this ordinance for a minimum of four years following receipt of an application.

If you have questions about the Los Angeles County Fair Chance Ordinance or related issues with background checks, contact a Jackson Lewis attorney to discuss.

Last Friday, Cal/OSHA published a Model WVPP. Similar to its model Injury and Illness Prevention Plan (IIPP) and COVID-19 Prevention policy, the Model WVPP is designed to assist employers in drafting their own plans. Employers are not required to use Cal/OSHA’s model but may use it as a template. The Model WVPP contains numerous questions and examples for employers to consider as they assess the risks in their own workplaces and “fill in the blanks” of the template accordingly.

Cal/OSHA also published a Fact Sheet for Employers on the requirements.  The Fact Sheet provides an overview of the requirements of:

• Creating a workplace violence prevention plan
• Violent incident log requirements
• Employer responsibilities with workplace violence recordkeeping
• Training employees on workplace violence

If you need assistance in developing a Workplace Violence Prevention Plan and related training or have related workplace safety issues, please contact a Jackson Lewis attorney to discuss.

The California Department of Industrial Relations Division of Workers Compensation updated its “Time of Hire” Pamphlet.  Employers must provide this document to newly hired employees. The document explains what workers’ compensation is, how to file a claim in addition to navigating medical care.

The Employment Development Department (EDD) updated its “For Your Benefit” pamphlet. Employers must provide this pamphlet at the time of hire and discharge of employees. The document details state-provided benefits for employees when terminated or when they are on certain leaves.  The document also discusses how to obtain unemployment insurance, tax requirements for unemployment benefits, a list of workers who are not eligible to obtain unemployment benefits, and information concerning eligibility for state disability insurance.

Both documents are also available in Spanish.

If you have questions about the updated Pamphlets, related employee postings, and notices contact a Jackson Lewis attorney to discuss.

This annual increase is mandated by a statute enacted by California in 2017, which authorizes increases in certain minimum and maximum civil penalties to ensure consistency with federal OSHA’s civil penalties. The increase is based on the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ report on the October Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U) each year. This year’s adjustment for the inflation rate was approximately 3.24%.

Cal/OSHA has three types of violations typically cited:

• Regulatory: Relate to regulatory and statutory requirements such as injury and illness reporting and recordkeeping.
• General: Violations relating to the safety and health of employees.
• Serious: Violations where there is a realistic possibility of death or serious harm resulting from an actual hazard.

There are also penalties for repeat violations and willful violations of health and safety regulations.

For Cal/OSHA citations issued on or after January 1, 2024, the maximum penalties will be as follows:

• Regulatory and General: $15,873.00
• Willful and Repeat: $158,727.00

There was no increase to Serious violations, which remains at $25,000.00.

If you have questions regarding Cal/OSHA penalties or related issues, please contact a Jackson Lewis attorney to discuss.

Under AB 1076, employers must notify current employees and former employees (employed after January 1, 2022), that any noncompete agreement or noncompete clause contained within an agreement the current or former employee signed is void unless the agreement or clause falls within one of the statutory exceptions set forth in Business and Professions Code section 16600, et seq. The notices must be an individualized written communication to the employee or former employee, delivered to the last known address and email address the employee provided to the employer.

The changes to the law took effect on January 1, 2024, but employers have until February 14, 2024, to provide the required notices under the statute.

If you have questions about the notice requirements under AB 1076 or related issues, contact a Jackson Lewis attorney to discuss.

Since 2020, California has mandated that employers with at least 100 employees submit a pay data report to the state Civil Rights Department (CRD) as part of its efforts to advance fair pay. The reporting requires annual submissions detailing pay and hours worked for employees in California, or who are a part of a California establishment, categorized by establishment, job category, race/ethnicity, and sex.

In 2022, the reporting requirements expanded to require reporting on both “payroll employees” (workers on an employer’s payroll) and “labor contractor employees” (workers not on an employer’s payroll who are engaged in the employer’s usual course of business). That amendment also established potential penalties of $100 per employee for employers who fail to comply (or $200 per person for repeat failures).

In January 2024, California again updated its pay data reporting website for the 2024 reporting cycle.

Below are the key updates:

1. Reporting Portal Opening: The portal in which employers must submit their pay data reports will open on February 1, 2024.
2. Submission Deadline: The deadline to submit payroll and labor contractor employee reports is May 8, 2024.
3. New Templates Released: Updated Microsoft Excel templates for this year’s reporting are designed to help employers compile and submit the necessary information.
4. FAQs Update Pending: The FAQs currently reflect the 2022 reporting period (submitted in 2023) and have not been updated for this cycle. Thus, further guidance for this year may still be released to address any changes or provide additional clarifications.

This year’s payroll employee template introduces three new required data points for each group of employees by establishment, job category, race/ethnicity, sex, and pay band:

1. The number of employees in the group that work onsite;
2. The number of employees in the group that work remotely from California; and
3. The number of employees in the work that work remotely outside of California.

The new labor contractor employee template requires the same data points for each labor contractor, establishment, job category, race/ethnicity, and sex employee group.

Employers should act promptly to prepare their data and use the CRD’s new tools and resources.

If you have questions about California’s pay data reporting requirements or need assistance with this submission, contact a Jackson Lewis attorney to discuss.

Employers can find an overview regarding completing both the log (Form 300) and the annual summary (Form 300A) on Cal/OSHA’s Recordkeeping Overview page.

Cal/OSHA requires employers to record work-related fatalities, injuries, and illnesses. To be recordable under Cal/OSHA’s regulations, an injury or illness must be work-related and result in one of the following:

• Death;
• Days away from work;
• Restricted work or transfer to another job;
• Medical treatment beyond first aid;
• Loss of consciousness; or
• A significant injury or illness diagnosed by a physician or other licensed health care professional.

While the COVID-19 emergency in California has concluded for workplace health and safety requirements, any work-related COVID-19 fatality or illness that falls under the above criteria must be recorded on an employer’s Form 300, 300A, and 301, or equivalent forms.

Certain employers are required to annually electronically submit Form 300A data to Cal/OSHA by March 2^nd. Covered employers are those that meet one of the following requirements:

• Has 250 or more employees, unless specifically exempted by section 14300.2 of title 8 of the California Code of Regulations; or
• Has 20 to 249 employees in the specified industries listed including Agriculture, Manufacturing, and Grocery Stores. For a full list of covered industries, employers can review Appendix H.

Information on how to make the electronic submission is available on the federal OSHA’s Injury Tracking Application website.

If you have questions about preparing your annual summary or need assistance with compliance, please reach out to the Jackson Lewis attorney with whom you often work or any member of our Workplace Safety and Health Team.

The Supreme Court held trial courts lack inherent authority to strike PAGA claims on manageability grounds. In reaching that conclusion, the Court emphasized that trial courts do not generally possess a broad inherent authority to dismiss claims and examined the statutory and procedural differences between class actions and PAGA claims.

In the underlying case, plaintiffs brought PAGA and class claims primarily based on purported meal and rest period violations. The trial court dismissed the PAGA claim as “unmanageable” due to the number of individualized issues.

The Court of Appeal subsequently found courts do not have the discretion to strike a PAGA claim based on manageability, disagreeing with the prior California Court of Appeal decision from another district, holding that trial courts do have inherent authority to narrow or strike PAGA claims on manageability grounds. The Estrada Court of Appeal held striking a PAGA claim as unmanageable would interfere with PAGA’s purpose as a law enforcement mechanism by placing an extra hurdle on PAGA plaintiffs that would not be placed on the State.

The California Supreme Court Estrada decision resolves the split of authority regarding a trial court’s authority to dismiss PAGA claims as unmanageable. Agreeing with the Estrada Court of Appeal, the Court concluded that there was no basis for providing trial courts the authority to strike PAGA claims due to manageability issues. Moreover, the Court rejected the idea that class action manageability requirements could be grafted onto PAGA claims, reiterating that an employee seeking civil penalties under PAGA need not satisfy class action requirements.

Despite holding that PAGA claims could not be stricken as unmanageable, the Court noted trial courts have numerous tools other than striking a claim that can be used to manage complex cases, including PAGA claims. This decision does not preclude trial courts from limiting the types of evidence a plaintiff may present or using other tools to assure that a PAGA claim is effectively tried. The Court noted that trial courts may issue substantive rulings, including demurrers, motions for summary judgment, judgment notwithstanding the verdict, and potentially others under the Code of Civil Procedure to effectively adjudicate overbroad or unspecific claims on which a plaintiff is unable to prove liability as to all or most employees. As such, the Court left “undisturbed various case management tools designed to ensure that [PAGA] cases are efficiently, fairly, and effectively tried.”

If you have questions about the Estrada decision or related issues regarding PAGA, contact a Jackson Lewis attorney to discuss.

Covered Employers

Public and private employers with five or more employees are covered by the law. This includes union hiring halls, labor contractors, temporary employment agencies, and client employers.

Requesting Background Checks

Covered employers may not ask applicants about their criminal history until after a conditional offer is extended. However, even after a conditional offer, employers may not ask about or consider information about the following:

• An arrest that did not result in a conviction.
• Referral to or participation in a pretrial or posttrial diversion program.
• Convictions that have been sealed, dismissed, expunged, or statutorily eradicated.

Steps for Rescinding a Job Offer

Under the law covered employers must take specific steps if they want to rescind a conditional job offer based on an applicant’s criminal history.

1. Conduct an individualized assessment.
2. Provide notification in writing that the applicant’s criminal history disqualifies the applicant from the position. The notice must also provide the conviction(s) that disqualify the applicant.
3. Provide a copy of the conviction history report to the applicant.
4. Provide the applicant 5 business days to respond to the preliminary decision to rescind.
5. Consider any response from the applicant.
6. Provide final notice in writing about disqualification.

The Civil Rights Department has sample forms available on its website.

If you need assistance with compliance with the Fair Chance Act, contact a Jackson Lewis attorney to discuss.

In the Governor’s proposed budget released on January 10, 2024, there is a request to make changes to the Healthcare Minimum Wage law so that the Governor, legislators, and key stakeholders can work through the proposed changes to the law. The proposal is found in the Governor’s Budget Summary on page 109.

On October 13, 2023, Governor Newsom signed Senate Bill (SB) 525, which enacts a multi-tiered statewide minimum wage schedule for healthcare workers employed by certain covered healthcare facilities. The new law established 5 different minimum wage schedules depending upon the nature of the employer.

Jackson Lewis will continue to track information regarding the changes to SB 525, if you have questions about SB 525 or related issues contact a Jackson Lewis attorney to discuss.

If 10% or more of an employer’s workforce at any facility or establishment speaks a language other than English, the employer must also display this poster in that language (or languages).  The updated “California Law Prohibits Workplace Discrimination and Harassment” poster and other postings required by the Civil Rights Department are available on their website, including translated versions.

If you have questions about compliance with California employee notice requirements or related issues, contact a Jackson Lewis attorney to discuss.

Covered Employers

Under AB 547, covered employers include any person or entity that employs at least one covered worker or otherwise engages by contract, subcontract, or franchise agreement for the provision of janitorial services by one or more covered workers. The term “employer” includes the term “covered successor employer,” but does not include an entity that is the recipient of the janitorial services.

Covered Worker

The legislation defines a covered worker as a janitor, including any individual predominantly working, whether as an employee, independent contractor, or franchisee, as a janitor, as that term is defined in the Service Contract Act Directory of Occupations (SCADO) maintained by the United States Department of Labor.

Housekeeping staff and workers who specialize in window washing, cleaning machinery, and who receive additional compensation for maintaining sterile facilities or equipment are also excluded from the SCADO definition of a janitor.

AB 547 specifically exempts from its definition of a “covered worker” any individual whose work duties are predominantly the final cleanup of debris, grounds, and buildings near the completion of a construction, alteration, demolition, installation, or repair work project.

Harassment Prevention Training

The harassment prevention training requirements under AB 547 are similar to those already required of all employers with 5 or more employees in the State of California.  However, unlike the state requirement, all employees (both supervisory and nonsupervisory) are required to have at least two hours of training.

In addition, covered employers must ensure they use content developed by the Labor Occupational Health Program (LOHP) under the direction of the Department of Industrial Relations. The training content is available on the DLSE website.

In addition, the training shall include identification of local, state, and national resources for victims of sexual violence and harassment, including hotlines and helplines for survivors, community-based resources such as rape crisis centers, counseling services, and mental health support, and agencies or organizations to whom they may report sexual violence and harassment.

Qualified Organizations and Peer Trainers

AB 547 further requires employers to use a qualified organization and peer trainers to provide harassment prevention training. The DLSE maintains a list of qualified organizations. If there are no qualified peer trainers available in a specific county to provide the training because no qualified organization was included on the Labor Commissioner’s website, or none of the qualified trainers are available to meet an employer’s training needs, the employer may use a trainer as prescribed by the Civil Rights Department to fulfill their obligations under Labor Code section 1429.5. The prescribed trainer must provide in-person training and use the LOHP training materials.

If you have questions about compliance with the sexual violence and harassment prevention training for janitorial service providers or related issues, contact a Jackson Lewis attorney to discuss.

These recommendations are important for the application of the Cal/OSHA COVID-19 Prevention Non-Emergency Regulations which remain in effect until 2025 and incorporate the CDPH’s definitions of infectious period and its guidance for isolation into the regulations.

If you have questions about COVID-19 Workplace Safety or related issues, contact a Jackson Lewis attorney to discuss.

Employers with employees located in California are generally required to withhold and send state disability contributions to the EDD.

Of note, Senate Bill (SB) 951, which was signed in 2022, eliminated the Maximum Contribution and Taxable Wage Ceiling effective January 1, 2024.  These concepts can be disregarded by employers, subject to future legislation.

The 2024 rates are as follows:

The Employee Contribution Rate is the percentage withheld from the wages of employees who are covered by the Disability Insurance (DI) and Paid Family Leave (PFL) programs.

The contribution rate is relevant to employers who must comply with San Francisco’s Paid Parental Leave Ordinance (PPLO).  The city of San Francisco requires most employers with twenty or more employees worldwide to supplement PFL benefits received by employees to bond with a new child. 

During the PFL leave period, the PPLO supplemental compensation provided by an employer, added to the PFL wage replacement benefit received from the EDD, must equal 100% of the employee’s gross weekly wage, subject to a cap. For 2024, the PPLO cap remains $2,700 per week, as it was the year prior. The San Francisco Office of Labor Standards Enforcement has a calculator on its website to assist employers in determining how much supplemental compensation they must pay to eligible employees per week.

The Assessment Rate is relevant to employers that maintain a state-approved voluntary plan (VP), which is a disability insurance plan that an employer can offer to its California employees as a legal alternative to mandatory DI and PFL. The Assessment Rate is the amount that an employer pays to the EDD as an administrative expense for maintaining a voluntary plan.

Jackson Lewis continually monitors governmental changes affecting California employers. If you have questions regarding Paid Family Leave, the Paid Parental Leave Ordinance or other wage replacement requirements contact a Jackson Lewis attorney to discuss.

Employers should continue to be aware of several cases pending before the state’s high court. Here are the highlights and what these cases could mean for California employers.

PAGA & Arbitration

Estrada v. Royalty Carpet Mills

Do California courts have discretion to strike or narrow a Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) claim that is unmanageable?

In Estrada, there were a number of individualized issues and the court dismissed the plaintiff’s PAGA claims for meal and rest period violations as unmanageable. On appeal, the Court of Appeal held that California courts do not have discretion to strike PAGA claims that are unmanageable. Specifically, it held that such discretion would place an extra burden on PAGA plaintiffs that the state need not satisfy, interfering with the purposes of PAGA.

The Court of Appeal in Estrada ruled opposite another district in the California Court of Appeal, which held that trial courts do have inherent authority to strike or narrow unmanageable PAGA claims. The California Supreme Court will now remedy the split between districts and, if it reverses Estrada, employers will have a powerful new tool in PAGA actions.

Quach v. California Commerce Club, Inc.

Must a party opposing a motion to compel arbitration show prejudice to establish that the party who filed the motion to compel waived its right to arbitrate?

In Quach, the defendant waited 13 months into discovery before filing a motion to compel arbitration. Quach argued that the Commerce Club had waived its right to arbitrate by waiting 13 months to move to compel arbitration. Quach further claimed that Commerce Club’s delay forced him to expend time and money preparing for litigation, causing him prejudice.

The trial court agreed, finding Commerce Club had waived the right to arbitrate by propounding a “large amount of written discovery,” taking Quach’s deposition, and expending “significant time meeting and conferring.”

The Court of Appeal disagreed with the trial court, following California Supreme Court precedent that participation in litigation alone cannot support a finding of waiver and that fees and costs incurred in litigation alone will not establish prejudice on the part of the party resisting arbitration.

Meanwhile, the United States Supreme Court has held, in Morgan v. Sundance, Inc., that a party is not required to show prejudice to establish an opposing party’s waiver of its right to arbitrate. The California Supreme Court will provide clarity and may reduce the expense of litigating motions to compel arbitration.

Ramirez v. Charter Communications, Inc.

Is it permissible for an arbitration agreement to allocate interim fees for a motion to compel arbitration to the prevailing party?

Here, Ramirez and Charter Communications, Inc. (Charter) were parties to an arbitration agreement. Charter fired Ramirez and Ramirez sued, alleging claims under the Fair Employment and Housing Act. Charter moved to compel arbitration. The trial court denied Charter’s motion, finding the arbitration agreement substantively unconscionable because it provided for interim fees to be awarded to the prevailing party on a motion to compel arbitration.

The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s order denying the motion to compel arbitration as unconscionable due to the provision at issue, declining Charter’s request to sever that provision and compel arbitration under the remaining agreement.

The California Supreme Court will consider whether parties can agree to arbitration agreements that include interim fee-shifting provisions in favor of a party prevailing on a motion to compel arbitration. Moreover, it will consider whether such a provision is so unconscionable that it invalidates the entire agreement or whether courts may sever those provisions.

Employers should pay close attention to this case, as well as the courts’ recent attitudes towards arbitration agreements. Specifically, if the Court upholds the Court of Appeal’s order, employers may need to remove interim fee-shifting provisions. Regardless of the outcome, employers should review their arbitration agreements to ensure that courts would not interpret their terms as unfairly one-sided and that their agreements contain legally compliant severability clauses.

Fuentes v. Empire Nissan, Inc.

Where an arbitration agreement is fair in substance, is it nevertheless unenforceable for unconscionability where it is a one-page form with tiny, seemingly blurred print, largely unreadable, and presented on a take-it-or-leave-it basis?

Here, the trial court held the arbitration agreement procedurally unconscionable. The Court of Appeal reversed, holding that the substance of the arbitration agreements was fair and there was therefore no reason to invalidate the agreements for unconscionability.

The result of this case will shape the future of employment arbitration agreement enforceability which has been changing dramatically in recent years.

Zhang v. Superior Court

If a party moves to compel arbitration in a non-California forum pursuant to a forum-selection clause and seeks to stay related California litigation under Section 1281.4, can the opposing party preempt the court’s “competent jurisdiction” requiring a stay of the California litigation by merely invoking Labor Code, section 925? Moreover, can a party to an arbitration agreement circumvent the arbitration agreement’s delegation of all issues to an arbitrator by invoking Labor Code, section 925?

Plaintiff Zhang is a former Dentons law firm partner who worked in California. After Dentons removed him from the partnership for diverting money owed to the firm, they initiated arbitration in New York pursuant to a signed arbitration agreement. Zhang then filed suit in California, arguing that he was an employee and that Labor Code, section 925, preempted arbitration in New York. Dentons sought a stay under Section 1281.4. The trial court granted Denton’s motion for a stay. After the Court of Appeal denied Zhang’s petition for a writ and the Supreme Court ordered the Court of Appeal to review, it denied Zhang’s petition on the merits.

This case is crucial for employers because it may affect who can benefit from the Labor Code, section 925, and therefore preempt forum-selection clauses.

Discrimination, Harassment & Retaliation

Bailey v. San Francisco District Attorney’s Office, et al.

Is summary judgment appropriate for the employer on discrimination, harassment, and derivative claims where a non-supervisor used a highly offensive racial slur on one occasion?

The trial court awarded summary judgment to the employer. The Court of Appeal affirmed summary judgment. Now, in a rare less-than-unanimous vote, the California Supreme Court granted review. This case may affect the standards for hostile work environment claims and the level of severity an employee must show to establish a hostile work environment. Employers should continue to be proactive in training employees to avoid the appearance of impropriety in the work environment.

Wage and Hour

Huerta v. CSI Electrical Contractors, Inc.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9^th Circuit certified three questions in this case to the California Supreme Court:

(1) Is time spent on an employer’s premises in a personal vehicle, waiting to scan an identification badge, having security guards peer into the vehicle, and exiting a security gate compensable as “hours worked” under California Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Order 16?

(2) Is time spent on the employer’s premises in a personal vehicle driving between the security gate and the employee parking lots, while subject to certain rules from the employer, compensable as “hours worked” or as “employer-mandated travel” under Wage Order 16?

(3) Is time spent on the employer’s premises, when workers are prohibited from leaving by the fact of the location but not required to engage in employer-mandated activities, compensable as “hours worked” within the meaning of Wage Order 16 or Labor Code, section 1194 when the relevant collective bargaining agreement designated that time as an unpaid “meal period”?

In the underlying case, employees commuted to a remote work site to build solar panels. Once they left the highway, they had to drive forty minutes to the muster point, sometimes at a speed as slow as five miles an hour to minimize the disturbance of endangered kit fox species in the area.  Sometimes they had to wait outside the gate off the highway while a biologist cleared the road. Employees were also required to stop at a security gate (the location of which moved during the project) for identification.  Due to the times employees came and left, the lines at the security gate could be five to twenty minutes long.

This case will provide further guidance for what counts as hours worked under California law. The case will also provide guidance on the CBA exception for meal periods contained in Wage Order 16.

Iloff v. LaPaille

For an employer to establish its “good faith” defense to liquidated damages, must it demonstrate that it took affirmative steps to ascertain whether its pay practices complied with the Labor Code and Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Orders? May a wage claimant prosecute a paid sick leave claim in a de novo wage claim trial conducted pursuant to Labor Code section 98.2?

In this case, the plaintiffs filed wage claims with the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement (DLSE) against defendants Cynthia LaPaille and Bridgeville Properties, Inc. (BPI) for unpaid wages in violation of the Labor Code. The plaintiffs received a favorable order from the Labor Commissioner, and BPI appealed to the superior court. In the subsequent superior court action, the plaintiffs were represented by the Labor Commissioner’s office.

Following a de novo trial on the wage claims, the court found that plaintiffs were entitled to unpaid wages and certain penalties but rejected the plaintiffs’ unfair competition law claims under Business and Professions Code § 17200 (the UCL). The court declined to award the plaintiffs liquidated damages, penalties for violations of sick leave notice requirements, and did not impose personal liability on BPI’s CEO, Cynthia LaPaille.

The issues here are the Court of Appeal’s holdings that liquidated damages were not appropriate for failure to pay minimum wages under Labor Code, section 1194.2(a), and that plaintiffs do not have private rights of action for sick leave penalties.

Section 1194.2(a) allows courts to reduce or eliminate liquidated damages where an employer can show that it acted in “good faith” with “reasonable grounds” for believing it did not violate the law. Here, because the plaintiffs initiated the idea of working in exchange for rent, rather than wages, as an independent contractor, and the unsettled status of the law on this subject at the time, the trial court acted within its discretion in finding the defendants acted in good faith.

Moreover, sick leave penalties require independent actions by the Labor Commissioner or Attorney General’s office. Even though the plaintiffs were represented by the Labor Commissioner in their superior court action, this did not suffice to permit their pursuit of sick leave penalties.

Separately, and not at issue with the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeal held that LaPaille may be held personally liable due to her managerial role with BPI under Labor Code § 558.1(a), which expressly permits personal liability for individuals “acting on behalf of an employer.” It further held that the trial court had discretion as to whether equitable relief for unfair business practices would be in the interest of justice, even where Labor Code violations exist. Because the parties appeared to lack understanding as to the plaintiff’s entitlement to wages for the services they performed for BPI, the Court of Appeal found the trial court properly exercised its discretion in denying equitable relief.

Employers should watch this matter for not only how it may affect potential damages in wage and hour litigation for seemingly innocent violations, but also the effect it could have on appeals from Labor Commissioner decisions.

Jackson Lewis continues to track California case law affecting employers. If you have questions about any of the cases pending before the California Supreme Court or related issues, contact a Jackson Lewis attorney to discuss.

1. California’s Paid Sick Leave Requirements Increased Effective 2024
2. California Enacts Legislation to Support State’s Prohibitions on Employee Restrictive Covenants
3. State of California Certifies State Minimum Wage for 2024 
4. Cal/OSHA COVID-19 Prevention Non-Emergency Regulations Have Taken Effect as of February 3, 2023
5. California Civil Rights Department Updates FAQs on Pay Data Reporting
6. California Local Minimum Wages Increasing on July 1
7. The City of Los Angeles Announces the Minimum Wage Rate Increase for July 2023
8. California Civil Rights Council Modifies Regulations Pertaining to Background Checks
9. Post It Up – California’s Employer Posting Requirements
10. CDPH Updates Definition of COVID-19 Outbreak

The City of San Diego’s Office of Labor Standards & Enforcement (OLSE) has issued guidance on complying with state and the City of San Diego’s paid sick leave requirements.

San Diego’s local ordinance already required employers to provide no less than 40 hours of earned sick leave.  The OLSE notes other areas where either the San Diego ordinance is silent or the state statute is more generous, in which case the state statute must be followed.

Of significance, the OLSE notes that while the state statute indicates employees must provide reasonable advance notice for the need for paid sick leave when foreseeable, the San Diego ordinance states that employers cannot require more than seven days’ notice.

If you have questions about compliance with state or local paid sick leave, contact a Jackson Lewis attorney to discuss.

Legislative Changes

New Law Exempts Certain Airline Cabin Crew from California Meal and Rest Period Requirements

Amendments to California Agricultural Bargaining Process Per Governor’s Agreement with Unions

California Revives Industrial Wage Commission

California Enacts Legislation to Support State’s Prohibitions on Employee Restrictive Covenants

Fast Food Council Redux

Revisions to Student Work Permits

California Mandates Workplace Violence Prevention Plans for All Employers

California’s Paid Sick Leave Requirements Increased Effective 2024

California Bans Inquiries About Applicant Cannabis Use

Revisions to Grocery Worker Recall Rights

COVID-19 Right of Recall Extended

California Adds Leave for Reproductive Loss

California’s New Requirement for Diversity Disclosures by Venture Capital Companies

New California Law Makes Non-Compete Agreements Unlawful, Not Just Void

California Gives Health Care Workers a Raise

Compensation for Food Handler Certification in California

Case Law Changes

The “I Do Not Recall Signing” Defense to Arbitration Agreements Ruled Out by California Court of Appeal

Federal Arbitration Act Preempts California Ban on Mandatory Arbitration Contracts, Ninth Circuit Holds

California Courts Provide Employers More Reasons to Review Their Arbitration Agreements

California Court of Appeal Addresses When Violations are “Willful” or “Knowing and Intentional” for Grant of Certain Wage and Hour Penalties

California Court of Appeal Upholds Proposition 22 as Mostly Constitutional

California Court of Appeal Stresses the Difference Between Substantive and Procedural Unconscionability for Arbitration Agreements

No Religious Accommodation Required from Vaccine Mandate at Fictional Hospital

California Supreme Court Holds Employee Retains Standing for Non-Individual PAGA Claims in Court

California Supreme Court Rules Against COVID-19 Take-Home Exposure Liability for Employers

Administrative Changes
CDPH Updates Definition of COVID-19 Outbreak

State of California Certifies State Minimum Wage for 2024 

California’s Modified Background Regulations Take Effect October 1st

California’s Labor Commissioner Publishes Updated Wage Theft Notice

California Labor Commissioner Publishes Updated FAQ for California Paid Sick Leave

Cal/OSHA Standards Board Adopts Temporary Standard for Silica

Jackson Lewis will continue to track changes that affect California employers in 2023. If you have questions about California workplace law compliance, contact a Jackson Lewis attorney to discuss.

The emergency temporary standard (ETS)comes after the California Department of Public Health issued an alert in November of worker deaths due to silicosis, which is caused by silica dust entering the lungs.  

The ETS includes revisions intended to protect workers engaged in high-exposure tasks such as cutting, grinding, and polishing artificial stone and natural stone containing more than 10% crystalline silica.

The ETS includes additional exposure control precautions employers should undertake such as suppression of dust by ensuring water coverage, protecting workers from airborne exposure during housekeeping, and using warning signage.

Covered Employees

The ETS applies to California workers exposed to RCS except:

• Construction work covered under section 1532.3, which covers exposures to RCS
• Agricultural operations covered under section 3436, which covers machinery and equipment.
• Exposures that result from the processing of sorptive clays

Exposure Control Plan and Training

Under the ETS, the written exposure plan is expanded to include:

• Air monitoring records showing that engineering controls are effective.
• Procedures for the proper use of personal protective equipment.
• Documentation of proper report of carcinogen use to Cal/OSHA as required by section 5203.
• Training procedures to ensure employees can prevent RCS exposures.

The training for employees must include the use of required dust control methods and health hazards and symptoms of RCS exposure.

Cal/OSHA has a Model Exposure Control Plan available on its website.

If you have questions about compliance with the ETS for Silica or related issues, contact a Jackson Lewis attorney to discuss.