By Minh N. Vu
Seyfarth Synopsis: We predict another busy year on all fronts as DOJ continues to push its regulatory and enforcement agenda.
Lawsuit Numbers. Last January, we predicted that roughly the same number of ADA Title III lawsuits would be filed in federal court in 2022 as in 2021, but halfway through 2022 it became apparent that the
Continue Reading ADA Title III Crystal Ball: What’s Ahead for 2023?By Jeryl L. Olson, Patrick D. Joyce, Rebecca A. Davis, Jose Almanzar, Ilana R. Morady, Brent I. Clark, and Craig B. Simonsen
Seyfarth Synopsis: Governor Gavin Newsom has signed into law two sweeping pieces of legislation prohibiting certain products containing intentionally added perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in California starting on January 1, 2025
Continue Reading New California Legislation Outlaw PFAS in Textiles and Cosmetics in Continuation of PFAS Regulation in Western StatesBy Emily A. Dorner and Karla Grossenbacher,
Seyfarth Synopsis: Employers need to be aware of the significant changes that are on the horizon when the California Privacy Rights Act (CPRA) becomes operative on January 1, 2023.
By way of background, in November of 2021, California residents voted to pass the CPRA, which affords California consumers heightened rights and
Continue Reading California Privacy Rights Act: Big Changes For Employers With Employees in California In 2023
By Minh N. Vu
Seyfarth Synopsis: The California Court of Appeals puts an end to lawsuits against online only businesses in California and calls out DOJ and Congress for inaction.
In a precedent setting, 35-page opinion, the California Court of Appeals yesterday closed the door on California lawsuits brought against online only businesses, agreeing with the U.S. Court of
Continue Reading Websites Are Not A Public Accommodation Under the ADA, Says California Court of Appeals
By Joseph Hadacek and Joshua A. Rodine
Seyfarth Synopsis: The California Supreme Court recently determined that meal and rest period premium payments are subject to the final pay timing requirements of Labor Code section 203 and the wage statement reporting requirements of Labor Code section 226(e). Additionally, the prejudgment interest rate for violating these sections is seven percent. Naranjo v.
Continue Reading California Supreme Court Finds Meal And Rest Premiums Subject To Wage Statement And Final Pay Requirements
DOL’s 2023 Priorities, Per Labor Secretary Marty Walsh. Additional personnel topped Labor Secretary Marty Walsh’s wish list for 2023 as he laid out next year’s proposed budget at a hearing in front of the Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies. During the hearing, Secretary Walsh was candid: “To be completely honest, I need more
Continue Reading Seyfarth Policy Matters Newsletter – May 20, 2022
Seyfarth Synopsis: On October 18, the DFEH issued Guidance which expressly approves denial of entry to individuals who cannot show a negative COVID test or proof of vaccination, refuse to have their temperature taken or respond to COVID-19 symptom screening questions, subject to providing reasonable accommodations to customers with disabilities.
In the latest COVID-related quandary, businesses
By Ilana R. Morady, Brent I. Clark, James L. Curtis, Benjamin D. Briggs, Adam R. Young, Patrick D. Joyce, Daniel R. Birnbaum, and Craig B. Simonsen
Seyfarth Synopsis: California Governor Gavin Newsom signed SB 606 into law on September 27, 2021. It creates two new categories of Cal/OSHA violations: “enterprise-wide” and “egregious”. It
Continue Reading California Senate Bill 606 to Beef Up Cal/OSHA Enforcement Authorities
By Benjamin D. Briggs, Brent I. Clark, Mark A. Lies, II, Adam R. Young, Ilana R. Morady, and Craig B. Simonsen
Seyfarth Synopsis: Cal/OSHA, in a press release, noted that it recently issued citations to a food manufacturer and its temporary employment agency, with over $200,000 in proposed penalties to each employer for
Continue Reading Cal/OSHA Cites Food Manufacturer and its Staffing Firm for Failing to Protect Hundreds of Workers from COVID-19 Exposure
By Thomas F. Howley and Dov Kesselman
Seyfarth Synopsis: The DOL’s ARB rejected an employee’s SOX retaliation claim where he inadvertently provided information to his employer and only “hinted” that he was filing a SOX-protected complaint. The ARB seems unwilling to accept retaliation claims where the employee fails to report to, or actively conceals information from, the statutory entities under
Continue Reading ARB: No Protected Activity where Employee Inadvertently Informed Employer and Only “Hinted” at Filing Whistleblower Complaint