Employment Law Observer

In the spirit of the season, we are using our annual "12 Days of California Labor and Employment" blog series to address new California laws and their impact on employers. On the fifth day of the holidays, my labor and employment attorney gave to me five golden rings and SB 988.

The end of one thing is always the beginning of another. That also rings true for years end and new employment laws. It is time, once again, for all California employers to sit down, buckle up, and get ready for the 2025 employment law updates and changes.

On November 13, 2024, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) issued a decision in Amazon.com Services LLC, holding that "captive-audience meetings" are unlawful under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). This decision reverses 76 years of precedent, which permitted employers to hold such meetings.

On June 13, 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court, in Starbucks Corp. v. McKinney (National Labor Relations Board), No. 23-367, rejected the arguments of the National Labor Relations Board (the “Board”) to relax the standard that a district court must employ in deciding whether to implement injunctive relief under Section 10(j) of the National Labor Relations Act (the “Act”). 

In the spirit of the season, we are using our annual "12 days of the holidays" blog series to address new California laws and their impact on California employers. On the tenth day of the holidays, my labor and employment attorney gave to me ten lords a-leaping and AB 636 and AB 594.

On September 15, 2023, the New York City Department of Consumer and Worker Protection issued amended rules relating to the New York City Earned Safe and Sick Time Act (“ESSTA”). The amendments codified the New York City Council statutory amendments to the ESSTA in 2020, which was designed to align the ESSTA with the New York State Paid Sick Leave Law. The amended rules went into effect on October 15, 2023.

Public employers have interests that differ from private employers. While both types of employers seek to increase their revenues, public employers have additional concerns that can take priority over short-term budgetary interests, such as maintaining public safety. Those interests can conflict with their employees' First Amendment rights to communicate on matters of public concern. In these circumstances, the law must balance the interests of public sector employees to speak on matters of public concern and the interests of public employers in applying proper workplace rules that promote and maintain cohesion, order, and teamwork—especially in the area of law enforcement.

In a recent 8-0 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld a Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision holding the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) applies to public employers of any size.

In Guido v. Mount Lemmon Fire District, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) applies to public employers of any size.