Advertise on podcast: California Employment News

The Workplace Know Your Rights Act – SB 294, takes effect on January 1st, 2026 and provides requirements for employers to notify employees of their rights related to law enforcement interactions at work, as well as providing the option for employers to notify an emergency contact in the event of an employee’s arrest at the workplace. Weintraub Tobin attorneys Ryan Abernethy and John Slavik discuss the key provisions of the new law, including the penalties for violations. Watch this episode on YouTube.

In this episode of California Employment News, Weintraub attorneys Ryan Abernethy and Talia Delanoy revisit the complexities of the regular rate of pay—a frequent issue in wage and hour class actions. From bonuses and shift differentials to common employer mistakes, they break down what must (and must not) be included in calculations, and the costly risks of getting it wrong. Watch this episode on the Weintraub YouTube channel. Show Notes: Ryan: Hello, everyone, and thank you for joining us for this installment of California Employment News, an informative video and podcast resource offered by the Labor and Employment Group here at Weintraub Tobin. My name is Ryan Abernethy, and I’m a shareholder in the firm’s Labor and Employment Group. I’m joined today by my partner, Talia Delanoy, who is new to our group, and this is her inaugural episode. We’re happy to have her join our team here. Over three years ago now, Lukas Clary and I spoke with you about the regular rate of pay. But since the regular rate of pay is such a prevalent issue that is increasingly featured in Wage and Hour class actions that we’re seeing pouring in. We wanted to revisit that topic today. Talia, why don’t you start us off by giving us a refresher with some basic information about the regular rate of pay, what it is exactly, and what needs to be included within it. Talia: Yes, absolutely. Thank you, Ryan. Most employers assume that the base rate of pay and employees regular hourly rate is all they need to think about when they calculate overtime and double-time. They just take the base rate of pay, multiply it by one and a half for overtime or two for double time, and that’s it. Unfortunately, the calculation isn’t that simple. The regular rate of pay, which is different from the base rate of pay, actually includes additional income such as non-discretionary bonuses, shift differentials, which is like additional pay when you have an employee use an undesirable schedule or for a weekend or overnight work, piece rate compensation, such as payment per box of fruit picked, or even commissions. Employers need to add to have all of these types of income in addition to the employee’s base hourly rate before calculating both overtime, double time, sick pay, and meal and rest period premium payments. To make this even more complicated, the law requires one calculation for a flat sum bonus, such as $50 paid for weekend work, and another calculation for production bonuses, such as an employee who might earn 5% of all sales in a given month. Talia: Let’s Let me give you a quick example. If you’re paying an employee a flat-sum bonus, here’s the example. Your employee earns $16 per hour and works 40 straight-time hours and four overtime hours on Saturday. The straight The overtime payment is simple. $16 times 40 hours equals $640. The overtime payment, $24 an hour times 4 hours equals $96. Now, the employee has paid the $50 bonus for working on Saturday. Now you need to calculate the overtime compensation due on the bonus. Now this is where the math comes in. You take $50 in bonus, you divide it by the 40 hours of straight time hours worked, and this gets you $1. 25, which is the per hour value of the bonus. Now you take that $1. 25, you multiply it by 1. 5 for the overtime, and you get $1 87. 5. This is the bonus overtime value per hour. Now you have to actually figure out how much of that goes to the overtime. You take the $1. 87. 5 times the 4 hours of overtime the employee worked, and you get $7. 50. This is the overtime due on the bonus. This is the part that most employers miss. Talia: When you add all of that up, the total straight time pay, the total overtime pay, the $50 flat sum bonus, and that $7. 50 over time owed on the bonus, you get a total of $793. 50. Ryan: Well, thank you, Talia. How about some good news now that we realize that a lot of us out there might be underpaying our employees based on the regular rate? Let’s discuss what doesn’t need to be included in the regular rate. There are at least three categories of items that can be excluded from the regular rate calculation because they’re not considered wages. The first exclusion is for payments that could be categorized as gifts or gratuities. This would include employer contributions to retirement life or other insurance benefits. Benefits. It also includes holiday bonuses or other payments given to employees that are considered rewards for service or rewards for loyalty, so long as the amounts paid are not directly measured by the employee’s hours worked or the employee’s production or efficiency. The second category of item that can be excluded from the regular rate includes items and payments that are made for periods where no work is performed. This is stuff like vacation pay, paid sick sick pay or similar payments. The third category is expense reimbursements, which are obviously not considered wages. Now, this shouldn’t be confused with per diem payments, which usually are required to be included in the regular rate of pay calculations. In addition, the cost or the value of loggings or meals that the company provides to employees often must be included as well in the regular rate of pay under certain circumstances. It’s pretty detailed, so we won’t get into that today, but just be aware of that. It’s also important to remember that premium payments must be paid at the regular rate of pay, not the base hourly rate. Just a refresher, under California law, not exempt employees who are not providing compliant meal or rest breaks are entitled to an extra hour of pay under the labor code. This payment is called a premium. We discuss this premium in more detail in other episodes. But many employers pay these premiums out at the employer’s base hourly rate, and that’s a mistake because the California Supreme Court has clarified that premiums must actually be paid at the often higher regular rate of pay. That would be a violation just by getting that wrong. Sick leave must also be paid out the regular rate of pay and not the base hourly rate. Talia, why don’t you share with us some of the risks employers face for getting the regular rate wrong? Talia: Absolutely, yeah. Unfortunately, regular rate of pay violations are low hanging fruit. An attorney need only request the employee’s payroll records, which the employers are obligated to provide, and they do some simple math to see if there are violations. If an employee’s pay stub shows an overtime rate that is exactly one and a half times the base rate of pay in the same pay period that the employee earned a bonus or other income like we discussed earlier, then that lawyer knows they have a slam dunk case. In the example that I gave earlier, if an employer neglected If you wanted to include that Saturday work bonus in the overtime calculation, that $7. 50 omission could cost the employer thousands of dollars. This is made up of significant penalties, $100 per employee per pay pay period and up to 30 days of pay at the employee’s full daily rate if the error is discovered after the employee quits or is terminated. The damages also include interest, potential liquidated damages, and payment of the employee’s attorney’s fees. This is a huge sum of money for missing a payment of just $7. 50. Employers, unfortunately, can also be subject to class action liability if they fail to use the regular rate of pay for all of their employees. Talia: In this very scary turn, those damages can extend back four years from when an employee files a lawsuit. Ryan: Thank you, Talia. We know this is a scary topic for some, and it’s pretty complicated. You can always reach out to one of our attorneys here at Weintraub if you have any specific questions about the regular rate or how to calculate production bonuses. With that, that’ll do it for today. We thank you all for joining us. You can continue to find California Employment News at our blog at www.thelelawblog.com and wherever you listen to your favorite podcasts. With that, we’ll see you next time. Thank you for joining us. Talia: Thank you.

In this episode of California Employment News, Lizbeth (Beth) West and Meagan Bainbridge present part four of the Workplace Investigation Series, discussing best practices for effectively memorializing the investigation in a report. Watch this episode on the Weintraub YouTube channel. You can also watch part one, part two, or part three of this series.

In this edition of California Employment News, Meagan Bainbridge and Nikki Mahmoudi break down the basics of California paydays — from the timing of wage payments, payday considerations, and posting obligations. Whether you’re an HR pro or a business owner, this is a must-know compliance topic. Watch this episode on the Weintraub YouTube channel.   Show Notes: Meagan: Hello, everyone. Thank you for joining us for this installment at the California Employment News, an informative video and podcast resource offered by the Labor and Employment Group at Weintraub Tobin. My name is Meagan Bainbridge, and I’m a shareholder in the firm’s labor and employment group. Today, I’m joined by my associate, Nikki Mahmoudi. Today, we’ll be talking about the basics of employed paydays. Nikki, can you start us off? Nikki: Of course. The California Labor Code is specific about the timing of wage payments and the regularity of paydays. All wages, with some exceptions, earned by an employee are due and payable twice during each calendar month on days designated advanced by the employer as regular paydays. So generally, labor performed between the first and 15th of the month is going to be paid for between the 16th and the 26th day of the month during which the labor was performed. Then labor performed between the 16th and last day of the month of any calendar month will be paid for between the first and the 10th day of that following month. With that said, employers don’t have to use that twice a monthly schedule. They can choose to pay employees weekly, bi weekly, or even semi monthly. By designating a regularly scheduled payday with payment within seven calendar days of the end of the pay period during which wages were earned. When it comes to exempt employees, and we’re talking about executive, administrative, and professional employees of employers covered by the Fair Labor and Standards Act, their salaries may be paid once a month on or before the 26th day of the month during which the labor was performed. Meagan: If that entire month’s salary, including any unearned portion between the payment and the last day of the month are paid at that time. Then when it comes to overtime payments, and here we’re talking about your non-exempt employees, generally, with some exceptions, payment of overtime wages earned in one pay pay period can be delayed until no later than that next pay period. Note, this is only going to be for the payment of overtime wages. So straight time wages must be paid within the times we discussed. If an employer chooses to pay overtime in this manner, they have to make sure on the wage statement to, one, itemize that overtime payment as a correction, and two, the correction is going to state the inclusive dates of the pay period for which the employer is correcting its initial report of how the payday has worked. Megan, can you give us a quick overview on other considerations employers should keep in mind with paydays? Nikki: Yeah, sure. Let’s start with circumstances in which a payday falls on a holiday or a weekend. Generally, if an employer is closed on a payday that falls on a Saturday or Sunday or a holiday listed in the California Government Code, that employer can pay wages the next business day. For example, if a regularly scheduled payday falls on the 20th of the month, and that happens to be a Sunday, the wages for payroll period may be paid that Monday. With that said, it’s always helpful to talk to your counsel to ensure you’re timely paying your employees. Another question I get a lot from employers is whether they can change their paydays. The answer is generally yes. As long as you’re still complying with the labor code requirements and you do provide advanced notice. But at any point you’re considering to change the pay date schedule, there’s not necessarily a specific law requiring a particular amount of notice to employees, but to avoid potential violations of pay days, employers should probably notify employees that the plan changed at least one full payroll cycle in advance of the new schedule, and I’d actually recommend a couple of additional payroll cycles where practicable or possible. Meagan: Also, What happens in the situation where a non-exempt employee fails to complete their time card? Well, employers should remember that even where an employee fails to turn in their time card, employers remain legally obligated to pay that employee on the established payday. Employers can still comply with this a time record by paying all wages it reasonably knows are due for the employee’s regularly scheduled work week. Let’s say an employee regularly works as scheduled 40 hours. The employer would then pay that 40 hours and defer payment of any overtime till the next regular payday. Finally, it’s important to keep in mind that the labor code does require that employers post payday information. Pursuant to labor code Section 207, employers are required to keep posted conspicuously a notice specifying the the pay days and the time and place of payment. Ideally, this posting should be at the regular place of work or at least somewhere where it can be seen by employees as they come or go or at the office or nearest agency for payment kept by the employer. Nikki: Thanks, Megan. Well, that’s it for now. You can continue to find our video series and podcast through the lelawblog.com or on the Weintraub Tobin YouTube channel. Thank you everyone for joining us, and we look forward to reconnecting with the next edition edition of California Employment News.

In this installment of California Employment News, Ryan Abernethy and Nikki Mahmoudi provide an essential overview of California’s Fair Chance Act—also known as the Ban the Box law. Learn what employers need to know about using criminal history in hiring decisions. Watch this episode on the Weintraub YouTube channel. Show Notes: Ryan: Hello, everyone, and thank you for joining us for this installment of California Employment News, an informative video and podcast resource offered by the Labor and Employment Group here at Weintraub Tobin. My name is Ryan Abernethy, and I’m a shareholder here at Weintraub Tobin. I’m joined here today with Nikki Mahmoudi, who is one of our great associate attorneys in the firm’s Labor and Employment Group. We are here today to discuss a general overview of California’s Fair Chance Act or the Ban the Box law, which restricts employers’ use of criminal background checks for hiring decisions here in California. There are many features to this Ban the Box law, so this installment of the California Employment News will be a general overview and not an exhaustive review of all of its nuances. So, nick, you want to kick us off, and if you could briefly describe California’s Ban the Box law, and specifically got its name. Nikki: Of course. As Ryan mentioned, here in California, the Fair Chance Act, otherwise known as the Banned the Box law, provides guidelines to employers on how to properly consider criminal history and employment decisions. Why is it called Ban the box. It’s because the law aims to remove the check box that was commonly included on job applications, which ask applicants to disclose whether they had a criminal record. The law requires employers with five or more employees, with a few exceptions, to to follow certain procedures when requesting and using criminal history information for pre-hired purposes. Specifically, regardless of the source of the criminal history information, employers must do the five following steps. The first, Two, is wait until a conditional job offer is made before asking applicants questions about criminal history or using criminal history information to inform their hiring decisions. Two, if the employer discovers the applicant has a conviction history, the employer must conduct an individualized assessment of the applicant’s conviction to determine whether it has a direct and adverse relationship with the specific duties of the job that justify denying the applicant the position. There are certain factors the ban the box law requires employers to consider in their individual assessments that we’ll discuss later. Three, the employer must notify the applicant of any potential adverse action based on the conviction history. The notice must identify the conviction, include a copy of any conviction history report, regardless of the source, and state the deadline for the applicant to provide additional information such as evidence of inaccuracy, rehabilitation, or other mitigating circumstances. Four, the employer must give the individual at least five business days from the individual’s receipt of the pre-adverse action to respond to the employer’s preliminary notice. Now, if within Five business days, the applicant notifies the employer in writing that the applicant disputes the conviction history’s report’s accuracy and is taking steps to obtain evidence, then the employer must give the applicant an additional five days to respond. Five, the employer must consider all the evidence submitted by the individual and notify the applicant of any final adverse action, any existing procedure the applicant has to take to challenge the decision or request consideration, and the applicant’s right to file a complaint with the California Civil Rights Department. Ryan, can you tell us a bit about what type of positions are not restricted by the ban the box law, as well as what types of criminal records the employer can and can’t rely on? Ryan: Sure. Thanks, Nikki. The ban the box law applies to not only outside applicants for employment, but also to existing employees who apply for or indicate a desire to be considered for a different position within their current employment. The law also applies as to existing employees who are subject to review when there is a change in ownership or management of a company. However, like you asked, Nikki, the law doesn’t apply to certain positions, including a position for which a state or local agency is otherwise required by law to conduct a conviction history background check. In addition, the law doesn’t apply to a position for a criminal justice agency. It doesn’t apply to a position as a farm labor contractor or to a position where an employer agent thereof is required by any state, federal, or local law to conduct criminal background checks. Some types of criminal records are categorically off limits to California employers. Unless the employer qualifies for very narrow exceptions, which we’re not going to get into today. The records that cannot be considered for employment decisions are the following. So any arrests that didn’t lead to a conviction, juvenile records, convictions that have been killed, dismissed, expunged, or statutorially eradicated pursuant to law, any referral to or participation in a pre-trial or post-trial diversion program. And further, as of 2024, California law prohibits employers from requesting information about prior cannabis use from an applicant for employment or using any information obtained about prior use from a criminal background check to make hiring decisions. Employers should be careful if you have any blanket policies that you won’t hire anyone convicted of a certain crime. As Nikki mentioned, the ban the box law requires employers to conduct individualized assessments of the individual’s conviction history. There are certain factors that employers are required to consider if their individual assessments before making an employment decision based on the criminal history of that particular applicant. These include, first is the nature and gravity of the individual’s criminal history. Category, like the harm caused by the criminal conduct. The employer also has to consider the amount of time that has passed since the conviction. Third, they have to consider the nature of the job the individual is seeking. There must be a direct and adverse relationship with the specific duties of a job that justify denying the applicant the position. For instance, someone applying for an accounting position who is guilty of embezelment or check fraud a year ago, that would likely be a legitimate conviction to consider, given the close connection with the job duties and the character of the conviction. So, Nikki, can you tell us how the ban of box law relates to other employment laws? Nikki: Definitely. So all employers must make sure that any consideration of criminal history information that is not disparately impact individuals in a protected class, and that’s going to include race, gender, national origin, or other characteristics protected by law. When an employer wants to consider revoking the job offer, do not forget to consider that the applicant may belong to a FHA-protected class. When we’re talking about FHA, we’re talking about the Fair Employment and Housing Act. In fact, the ban the box law is part of that Fair Employment and Housing Act. If the applicant belongs to a protected class or discloses information during the application process that shows that the applicant might be in a protected class, consult with an attorney before you make your final decision to revoke the conditional job offer. Compliant with California’s many employment laws are definitely difficult, or they can be difficult. Additionally, some local governments, such as San Francisco and LA, have enacted their own versions of the ban the box law. These ordinances include other prohibitions and requirements related to obtaining and using criminal background history information. Employers covered by a local fair chance ordinance must comply with both state and local law. The local ban the box ordinances in those jurisdictions often exceed the requirements found in the state’s ban the box law. So again, we encourage I encourage you to review your background check policies to ensure compliance and talk to counsel if you have any questions. Ryan: Well, as you can see, I hope we made the message very clear that when it comes to considering criminal history with job applicants or your employees, it can be very complicated. Because of that, it’s always helpful to consult with counsel. And that’s it for this episode. You can continue to find our video series and podcast through thelelawblog.com or on Weintraub Tobin’s YouTube channel. So thank you everyone for joining us. And we look forward to reconnecting with the next edition of California Employment News.

California expands employee rights for victims of violence: new leave policies and protections under AB 2499 take effect Jan 1. Weintraub attorneys Meagan Bainbridge and Shauna Correia discuss what employers need to know to update their policies in the latest installment of California Employment News. Watch this episode on the Weintraub YouTube channel. Show Notes: Meagan: Hello, everyone. Thank you for joining us for this installment of California Employment News. My name is Meagan Bainbridge, and I’m a shareholder in the Weintraub Tobin Labor and Employment department.  And with me today is one of my partners, Shauna Correia. As you likely know, in California, employees who are victims of certain crimes and domestic violence have the right to take unpaid time off work when they need it, such as to get medical or legal help or to attend court proceedings. Today, we’re going to discuss Assembly Bill 2499, which expands this leave and requires additional accommodations for California employees who either are victims of qualifying acts of violence or who have family members who are victims. Shauna, can you remind listeners about the scope of the law that was in effect prior to the passage of AB 2499?   Shauna: Labor Code Section 230 applied to all employers, regardless of size, and it prohibited employers from discharging or discriminating against an employee because of their status as a victim of a crime or abuse. It prohibited employers basically from discharging or discriminating against employees for taking time off to appear in court as a witness related to the crime or to obtain certain kinds of relief, like obtaining a restraining order or helping ensure the health, safety, or welfare of the victim or their child. Then, Section 230 also required employers to provide reasonable accommodations if the employee was a victim of domestic violence, sexual assault, or stalking, and they required an accommodation for the safety of the victim while they were at work unless it was an undo hardship. Labor Code Section 230.1 also imposed additional requirements and prohibitions on larger employers that have 25 or more employees. And those employers could not discharge or discriminate against employees taking time off for four reasons, basically seeking medical attention for injuries that were caused by a crime or abuse, or to obtain services such as from a domestic violence shelter or rape crisis center, or to obtain psychological counseling or mental health services for the crime, and then finally to participate in safety planning and take actions to increase safety from future crimes or abuse. And then the companion to that would be the paid sick leave Labor Code Section 246.5 requires employers to allow employees to use their paid sick leave days on their request if they’re a victim of domestic violence, stalking, or sexual assault, and they need time off for those reasons. Meagan: Yeah, that’s right. Can you explain what has changed?   Shauna: Sure. The first more procedural change is that these laws were moved out of the Labor Code and recodified underneath the umbrella of the Fair Implement and Housing Act. The importance of that is really a couple of things. One is the new rules will be enforced by the California Civil Rights Department, which enforces the Fair Implement and Housing Act for FIHA. This provides mechanisms for employees to bring civil actions in court rather than having them enforced by the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement, which is primarily responsible for enforcing wage and hour laws. So it makes some sense to move this statute there. But importantly, some of the definitions, and I’ll get into this in a little bit, but the rules for the leaves and accommodations now are going to more closely resemble the types of rules employers are more familiar with when they’re doing reasonable accommodations for disabilities under the FIHA. That is going to be more similar to the rules for family medical leave under the California Family Rights Act as well. And then, beyond just prohibiting discharging an employee, now it explicitly says that employers cannot engage in any form of retaliation against employees if they take or request to use the leave or their other rights under these laws. Meagan: Yeah. Shauna: I understand that Labor Code 230 and 230.1 apply to a specific list of crimes. And AB 2499, it’s a bit broader, is that right? Meagan: Yeah. So AB 2499 replaces some terminology that prior statutes referred to as crime or abuse. And now it talks about qualifying acts of violence. And so that’s more broadly defined. It still includes domestic violence, sexual assault, and stalking. But now it also includes any act, conduct, or pattern of conduct that includes bodily injury or death to someone, brandishing, exhibiting, or drawing firearms or other dangerous weapons, or any perceived or actual threat to use force against someone to cause physical injury or death. So it’s a little broader. A person can be a victim of a qualifying act of violence even if nobody has been arrested for or prosecuted or convicted of committing any crime. Shauna: Got it. So, does AB 2499 expand other definitions under the law? Meagan: Yes. So, the law previously provided some limited relief if the employer or their immediate family was not a crime victim. So, a couple of things have been expanded. So, the first is that the definition of family member has been expanded. So, under AB 2499, many of the protections under FIHA and paid sick leave now apply to not only an employee who is a victim of a qualifying act of violence but also any employee whose family member was a victim. And so, family members are broader than just immediate family and now include all the same individuals as under CIFRA. The biggest difference being that it now includes grandparents, grandchildren, or any designated person who doesn’t need to be a blood relative so long as that association with the employee is like a family relationship. Then again, now, just as under CIFRA, an employee can identify that designated person when they need to take the leave at that time. They don’t have to designate them in advance. However, an employer can limit the employee to only one person per 12-month period. As a result, if an employer has more than 25 employees or 25 or more employees, they’ll need to comply with certain anti-discrimination, anti-retaliation, reasonable accommodation, and paid sick leave requirements for this broader list of family members for employees who have these family members who are victims of qualifying acts of violence. Okay. Meagan: And has a lot changed regarding the types of activities an employee can take time off to do, such as after an act of violence has occurred? Shauna: Yeah. So, the types of activities, there was a pretty long list already of the types of activities that victims of crimes could take. And so now victims of qualifying acts of violence can take additional categories, I believe, in addition to the ones that were already stated in the labor code. So, some of the new ones are providing care directly to a family member who’s recovering from an injury, seeking or obtaining civil or criminal legal services, participating, but also preparing to participate in or attend a civil, administrative, or criminal legal proceeding related to the act, or seeking or obtaining or providing child care or care to a dependent adult if that’s necessary to ensure the safety of that child or that dependent adult. Meagan: I understand that under the new law, employers can have the right to limit the total amount of leave taken. Can you describe those new limits? Shauna: Yes. Before, actually, there was no express limit on the amount of time an employee could take off of work. And again, this is unpaid leave. But now, AB 2499 allows employers to limit the total leave taken. The amount of leave an employee can take now really depends on whether the victim is the employee or the employee’s family member. So, if the employee is a victim, employers can limit the total leave taken by that employee to 12 weeks. But if the victim is a family member of an employee, then employers can limit it a little bit more. They can limit the amount of leave taken to help a family member relocate and try to move to a new location to five days, and they can limit the total amount of leave taken to 10 days. However, that doesn’t apply if the victim of the crime died as a result. If the employee needs time off, for example, to provide care to their niece or nephew, the child of a sibling of the employee, or to attend criminal proceedings that might extend past 10 days, the employee may take up to the full 12 weeks. This leave does expressly run concurrently with any leave that would be available under the CIFRA or the Federal Family Medical Leave Act.  And it doesn’t provide an employee with rights to exceed that amount of leave under the FMLA. Meagan: Right. So, although this time is off as unpaid, an employee can use paid sick leave for these purposes if either the employee or the family member is a victim of qualifying acts of violence, right? Shauna: Yeah, right. And in addition to the leave, employers should also remember that these employees may need other accommodations if they are victims of qualifying acts of violence or their family members are victims. So, the requirements from the labor code will carry over to the new law, and again, they’re also expanded. So, for example, employers might need to make reasonable accommodations for employees who need safety measures to protect them at work, like changing the locks, changing the employee’s work telephone number, or even making scheduling or work location changes at the employee’s request. Meagan: Can employers deny leave? Shauna: Employers will still have the right to deny accommodations or leave if it’s an

Another year is drawing closer, and with it comes another minimum wage increase for California. Nikki Mahmoudi and Tomiwa Aina review the expected minimum wage increases for 2025 in this episode of California Employment News. Watch this episode on the Weintraub YouTube channel.   Show Notes: Nikki: Hi, everyone. Thank you for joining us for this installment of California Employment News, an informative video and podcast resource offered by the Labor and Employment Group here at Weintraub Tobin. My name is Nikki Mahmoudi, and I’m an associate in the group, and I’m joined by my fellow associate, Tomiwa Aina. So another year has come by with another minimum wage increase. So today we’re going to be talking about the minimum wage increases seeing for 2025 so far. As of January 1, 2025, California’s minimum wage will increase from $16 an hour to $16.50. The reason for this being is once the state minimum wage hit $15 an hour, the minimum wage rate has been adjusted annually for inflation based on the National Consumer Price Index for urban wage earners and clinical workers. A few things to note with that is the minimum wage cannot be lowered even if there’s a negative consumer price index. At the same time, the highest raise allowed in any one year is 3.5%. Another thing you want to keep in mind is sometimes, let’s say a jurisdiction is going to have a higher wage than the state minimum wage. We want to go with that higher minimum wage number. Additionally, certain industries may also have a higher minimum wage. Tomiwa, could you tell me more about examples where we’re seeing that higher minimum wage? Tomiwa: Of course, Nikki. As of July 1, 2024, certain localities have increased their minimum wage. For example, in Alameda, it was increased to $17 per hour. Emeryville increased their minimum wage to $19 and 36 cents per hour. Santa Monica increased it to $17.27 per hour, and San Francisco increased it to $18.67 per hour. There are also minimum wages that are specific to industries. For example, there is a higher minimum wage for certain fast food workers that’s been effective as of April 1, 2024, and that requires them to be paid at least $20 per hour. Then as of October 16, 2024, certain healthcare workers are going to be eligible to receive a higher minimum wage compared to the state minimum wage. You can expect a CEN episode dedicated just to that increase. Thank you very much all. That’s it for now. You can continue to find our video series and podcast through the LElawblog.com or on Weintraub Tobin’s YouTube channel. Thank you everyone for joining us, and we look forward to reconnecting with you with the next edition of California Employment News.

It is election season, and that means employees might need to take time off work to vote. Nikki Mahmoudi and Tomiwa Aina give a quick review of California’s voting leave law as it applies to businesses in this episode of California Employment News. Watch this episode on the Weintraub YouTube channel.   Show Notes: Tomiwa: Hello, everyone. Thank you so much for joining us today for this installment of the California Employment News, an informative video and podcast resource offered by the Labor and Employment Group at Weintraub, Tobin. My name is Tomiwa Aina, an associate in the Firm’s Labor and Employment Group, and today I am joined with my colleague, Nikki Mahmoudi. Now, as election season has started, we thought it would be a good idea to discuss California’s voting leave law as it applies to your businesses. So federal law does not require employers to provide any voting leave to its employees. However, California employees eligible to vote in any statewide or national election may request leave to vote if they do not already have enough time outside of their working hours to do so. Nikki, do you think you can tell us a little bit about whether voting leave in California is paid or unpaid and the notice that employers must give to their employees? Nikki: Of course. In California, employees are allowed to take as much time as needed to vote. Employees are allowed to take up to 2 hours of voting leave as paid leave. Any remaining leave time will be unpaid. An employee may take voting leave at either the beginning or the end of their regular work shift, whichever will give the employee the most time to vote and the least amount of time away from work. Also, at least 10 days before every statewide election, implementation, employers must conspicuously post a notice in their workplace or where it can be seen by employees, setting forth California’s voting leave provisions in the California Election Code. Tomiwa: Thank you very much, Nikki. Now, a lot of individuals vote before election day in California. However, if by the third working day before election day, an employee knows or believes that they will need time off to vote on election day, then the employee must notify the employer for at least two working days in advance that they will need time off to vote on election day. But some good news for employers, California law does not require employers to provide voting leave for elections other than statewide elections, such as municipal or county elections. So employers will not have to provide vote and leave for local elections. Nikki: Thanks, Tomiwa. Well, that’s it for now. You can continue to find our video series and podcast through the LElawblog.com or on the Weintraub Tobin YouTube channel. Thank you everyone for joining us, and we look forward to reconnecting with you on our next episode.

California will see an increase to minimum wage in January 2024 and has already seen some minimum wage increases in individual jurisdictions earlier this year. Nikki Mahmoudi and Tomiwa Aina review these changes in this episode of California Employment News. Watch this episode on the Weintraub YouTube channel here. Show Notes: Nikki: Hi everyone. Thank you for joining us for this installment of California Employment News, an informative video resource offered by the Labor and Employment Group here at Weintraub Tobin. My name is Nikki Mahmoudi, and I’m an associate in the group. I’m joined today by Tomiwa Aina, another associate in the group. Today we will be discussing the increases in California minimum wages. So, beginning in 2024, California’s minimum wage will increase from $15.50 to $16. And the reason that this is happening is the California Department of Finance explained that the minimum wage needed to rise to account for inflation. However, since local jurisdiction minimum wages are often higher than the state minimum wage, we want to go with that higher number. In fact, on July 1, 2023, there were increases in the minimum wages in various jurisdictions. Tomiwa, could you tell me more about this? Tomiwa: Sure, Nikki. So, some examples of adjustments of the minimum wage rates in certain jurisdictions include Alameda County, where the minimum wage increased from $15.75 to $16.52. In the city of Los Angeles, the minimum wage increased from $16.04 to $16.78. And in Los Angeles County itself, the minimum wage increased from $15.96 to $16.92. In San Francisco, the minimum wage also increased from $16.99 to $18.07. For more information on updates to minimum wage laws by jurisdictions, please see our Labor and Employment Blog posted on June 7, 2023, which can be found at thelelawblog.com. And now this is just a reminder. If your employee’s rate of pay is based on the minimum wage, these rates will impact any potential meal break or rest break premiums that your employees could be entitled to. So please make sure that your workplace posters relating to California’s minimum wage are updated. Nikki: Thank you. That does it for today. You can continue to find California Employment News on our blog at thelelawblog.com and wherever you listen to your favorite podcast. We’ll see you next time.

In this episode of California Employment News, Lukas Clary and Meagan Bainbridge discuss the importance of keeping detailed disciplinary records for all employees and explain what documents should be included. Watch this episode on the Weintraub YouTube Channel here.

In this episode of California Employment News, Lukas Clary and Meagan Bainbridge discuss steps that employers can take to comply with employee records requests while also mitigating the risk of potential workplace violation claims. Watch this episode on the Weintraub YouTube Channel here.

In this episode of California Employment News, Lukas Clary and Meagan Bainbridge discuss the erosion of confidentiality clauses in settlement agreements and what employers can do about it. Watch this episode on the Weintraub YouTube channel here.

In this episode of California Employment News, Lukas Clary and Meagan Bainbridge discuss recent developments relating to the labor code Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) and steps that employers can take to mitigate the risk of PAGA exposure. Watch this episode on the Weintraub YouTube channel here.

Weintraub Tobin is pleased to announce the launch of California Employment News, a series of short, informational videos designed to keep California employers up-to-date on legal developments in employment law. In this inaugural episode, Weintraub employment attorneys Meagan Bainbridge and Lukas Clary discuss best practices for employers to implement regularly, such as at the beginning of the year. Watch this episode on the Weintraub YouTube channel here.

On May 23, 2022, the California Supreme Court issued its decision in Gustavo Naranjo v Spectrum Security Services, Inc. (“Naranjo”), decided by the Second Appellate District in 2019. Employment attorneys Shauna Correia and Lukas Clary discuss the significant and immediate impacts on California employers from this decision. Watch this episode on the Weintraub YouTube Channel here.