San Fernando Valley Los Angeles Attorneys
Navigation Two
Phone Number

Entries in 2018 laws (4)

Thursday
Oct122017

California Employers: Governor Brown Signs Important New Legislation re Parental Leave and Hiring

Lawyer for EmployersEmployment Defense

by Tal Burnovski Yeyni

818-907-3224

 

You can like it. You can hate it. But one thing is certain: California is a trend-setter when it comes to employees’ rights. Maintaining that tradition, Governor Brown just signed Senate Bill 63 and Assembly Bill 168 into law.

California Parental Bonding Leave

Here is the gist:

Senate Bill 63: Parental Leave 

The new legislation provides eligible employees up to 12 weeks parental leave to bond with a new child. Parents may take this leave within one year of the child’s birth, adoption or foster care placement.

An employee is eligible for the leave if s/he has at least 12 months of service with the employer, has at least 1,250 hours of service with the employer during the previous 12-month period, and works at a worksite in which the employer employs at least 20 employees within 75 miles. 

Senator Hannah-Beth Jackson, SB 63’s author, defined the governor’s endorsement as:

...a great victory for working parents and children in California [...] With more women in the workforce, and more parents struggling to balance work and family responsibilities, our policies must catch up to the realities of our economy and the daily lives of working families. No one should have to choose between caring for their newborn and keeping their job.

The bill specifies it will be an unlawful employment practice for an employer to:  

  • Refuse to allow an eligible employee to take up to 12 weeks of the bonding leave;  

  • Refuse to provide a guarantee of employment in the same or a comparable position before the start of the leave;

  • Refuse to maintain and pay for coverage for an eligible employee during the leave (if applicable);

  • Refuse to hire, or to discharge, fine, suspend, expel, or discriminate against an individual because:
    • An individual’s exercise of the right to bonding leave;
    • An individual’s giving information or testimony as to his or her own bonding leave, or another person’s bonding leave, in an inquiry or proceeding concerning the bonding leave.
  • Interfere with, restrain, or deny the exercise of, or the attempt to exercise any right provided with respect to the bonding leave.  

The new law does not apply to employees who work for large employers (50+ employees) and are otherwise eligible for protected leave under the federal Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) and the California Family Rights Act (CFRA).      

If an employer covered by SB 63 employs both parents that are entitled to the leave – that employer is not required to grant bonding leave that would allow the parents leave totaling more than 12 weeks.

There’s more  the legislature also seeks to create a parental leave mediation pilot program.

Under the program, if an employer receives notice regarding an employee’s claim of violation of the parental leave law, the employer may request to mediate the dispute in a special Mediation Division Program.  An employee may not pursue any civil action concerning the parental leave until the mediation is complete. The pilot program will be in effect until January 1, 2020. 

Employers should be mindful that the new bonding leave is provided in addition to pregnancy disability leave. Thus, an employee who works for a covered employer and is disabled by pregnancy, childbirth, or a related medical condition is eligible for up to four months of pregnancy disability leave and up to 12 weeks of bonding leave.  

Assembly Bill 168: Salary Information

Employers may not ask for salary history

AB 168 prohibits all employers from: 

  • Relying on the salary history information of an applicant as a factor in determining whether to offer employment to an applicant or what salary to offer; and

  • Seeking salary history information, including compensation and benefits, about an applicant for employment;

Furthermore, the legislation requires employers to provide, upon reasonable request, the pay scale for a position to an applicant applying for employment.  

As the bill’s author Assemblymember Susan Eggman explained:

The practice of seeking or requiring the salary history of job applicants helps perpetuate wage inequality that has spanned generations of women in the workforce. AB 168 is a needed step to ensure that my 9-year-old daughter, and all women, can be confident that their pay will be based on their abilities and not their gender.

Note, however, that if an applicant, voluntarily and without prompting, discloses salary history information to a prospective employer, the employer may consider or rely on that voluntarily disclosed information in determining the salary for the applicant.  

Employers, update your company policies – both new laws go into effect January 1, 2018. As always, seek experienced employment counsel if confused about state and federal laws regarding leave of absence or hiring and firing practices.

Tal Burnovski Yeyni is an Employment Defense Attorney

Disclaimer:
This Blog/Web Site is made available by the lawyer or law firm publisher for educational purposes only, to provide general information and a general understanding of the law, not to provide specific legal advice. By using this blog site you understand there is no attorney client relationship between you and the Blog/Web Site publisher. The Blog/Web Site should not be used as a substitute for obtaining legal advice from a licensed professional attorney in your state.

Friday
Sep222017

Lighting Up Legislation: Regulating Recreational Marijuana in California

Environmental Litigation AttorneyEnvironmental Litigation Defense Attorney

Stephen T. Holzer

818.907.3299

 

California voters legalizing the use of recreational marijuana under Proposition 64, also known as The Adult Use of Marijuana Act (AUMA) last November is just the beginning. Deciding how cannabis will be grown, sold and consumed involves a lot of deep thinking by state and local legislators.

For one thing, AUMA has been replaced by the Medicinal and Adult-Use Cannabis Regulation and Safety Act, or MAUCRSA. The new law created one system of laws to regulate both medicinal and adult recreational use.

As we near the end of September, we realize two things: 

  1. Retailers are already stocking shelves with decorations for December holidays – it’s called “Christmas Creep” – a phenomenon that seems to arrive earlier and earlier each year.

  2. This year, “Cannabis Creep” is encroaching on the state too, as growers, distributors, potential retailers and consumers all keep their eyes peeled for the latest local and state laws regarding the purchase and sale of marijuana and marijuana-related products. Just think of the state government stocking up the legal shelves with bills and licensing requirements. 

Here’s a look at what’s happening currently in Los Angeles and state laws.

Regulating Marijuana Business Interests

State licenses for marijuana businesses are required, while many cities in California will also require approvals if not their own licensing. Los Angeles for example, requires city approval.

Los Angeles’s Proposition D, approved in 2013, will go up in smoke in January. The old ordinance prohibited sales of pot within the City unless the business dealt in medical marijuana and met certain other guidelines, like registration with the City Clerk. Proposition D will be repealed by Proposition M as of January 1, 2018.

Proposition M gives the L.A. City Council authority to enact and revise regulations regarding medical and recreational marijuana; enforce laws or collect fines; and tax sales.

Los Angeles Zoning: The City Planning Commission passed a Los Angeles ordinance to establish zoning regulations affecting pot growers, distributors and sellers. The primary rule under this ordinance to remember is the 800 ft. rule – no selling within 800 feet of schools, drug or alcohol treatment and rehabilitation centers, public libraries, public parks, or other cannabis retailers and microbusinesses that sell marijuana on site.

There are other zoning rules for Los Angeles: generally speaking, licensed sellers are allowed to sell in retail zones, and licensed cannabis product manufacturers are permitted to make products in manufacturing zones.

Cultivators though, have much more stringent rules pertaining to outdoor growth vs. greenhouse or nursery growth. See the info starting on page 9 of the L.A. ordinance link above for more information.

The California government developed a website to keep everyone straight at the state level: California Cannabis Portal (CCP).

As of now there are three branches of marijuana government: the Bureau of Medical Cannabis Regulation (BMCR, the main regulatory office), CalCannabis Cultivation Licensing (branch of the state’s Department of Food and Agriculture, also referred to as just CalCannabis), and Office of Manufactured Cannabis Safety Branch (MCSB is part of the state’s Department of Public Health), all post updates here.

State Licensing: According to CCP, applications for licensing are coming soon.

Under Senate Bill 94 which was chaptered in June, there will be two types of cannabis sales licenses in the state of California. Retailers selling recreational marijuana to adults should apply for A-licenses. Businesses selling medical marijuana should apply for M-licenses.

As noted, none of the state agencies are issuing licenses yet. The BMCR is the branch responsible for retail, distributor, lab testing and microbusiness licensing; and recommends business owners pursue approvals and licenses from city and county governments while they finalize the state process.

CalCannabis estimates the first cultivation licenses will be issued in January 2018. CalCannabis is working on a track-and-trace system to record supply chain movements.

The MCSB will offer several cannabis licenses, including Type 6 (non-volatile solvent and/or mechanical extractions) and Type 7 (volatile solvent extractions) licenses – neither of which will be available for a while, as the branch expects to be able to receive applications for licenses in January.

Pipe Dreams for Consumers?

Legalizing marijuana whether for medicinal or recreational use is a weighty endeavor – one that should be taken with great deliberation for the protection of all.

But given the fact that none of the state agencies are ready to issue licenses, and realistically, don’t seem to be able to do so until well after the start of the new year, the only lighting up consumers can look forward to in the near future is that of the Christmas and Hanukah lights in December.

At least those retailers are ready to roll.

 

Stephen T. Holzer is a Business Litigation Attorney and the Chair of our Environmental Practice Group. 

Disclaimer:
This Blog/Web Site is made available by the lawyer or law firm publisher for educational purposes only, to provide general information and a general understanding of the law, not to provide specific legal advice. By using this blog site you understand there is no attorney client relationship between you and the Blog/Web Site publisher. The Blog/Web Site should not be used as a substitute for obtaining legal advice from a licensed professional attorney in your state.

Friday
May262017

Franchisors: New Accounting Rules Will Significantly Impact Revenue Recognition

Franchise LawyerChair, Franchise & Distribution Practice Group

 

 

by Barry Kurtz

818.907.3006

 

 

An updated rule issued by the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) will change when most franchisors may recognize revenue on their balance sheets from the collection of initial franchise fees.

Historically, initial franchisee fees were recognized as revenue upon receipt. Then, FASB Interpretation No. 45 mandated that initial franchise fees could not be recognized as revenue until the franchise unit opened for business. The result was additional cash on a franchisor’s balance sheet when the initial franchise fee was received, with a corresponding liability for the deferred initial franchise fee that remained on the books until a franchise unit opened for business.

Franchise Fee Accounting Sound Bad? It Gets Worse.

Recently the rules changed again. Effective as of December 17, 2017 for public companies, and December 15, 2018 for other franchisors, Accounting Standards Codification 606 issued by the FASB and the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB) will apply. The recognition of initial franchise fees will now have to be divvied up over the life of a franchise agreement.

For example, if an initial franchise fee is $10,000 and the term of the agreement is ten years, revenue will be recognized as $1,000 per year for ten years. This method will apply to multi-unit development as well – franchisors will not be able to recognize all initial franchise fees as revenue when the first location opens, but rather, as each location opens.  

The new rule could cause some problems.

Income will be reduced and liabilities will increase. The deferred liability will reduce the franchisor’s net worth and may trigger registration state restrictions on the franchisor’s ability to collect initial franchise fees when a franchise agreement is signed, which can adversely affect the system’s perceived value. Auditors may require franchisors to restate previous years’ financial statements, which could make a system look weaker as a going concern.

Additionally, restated financial statements could open the door to claims from unhappy franchisees that they were misled about a system’s financial condition. Growing franchise systems that rely on franchise sales for revenue could take a hit, as the system as a whole may be seen as less attractive to potential franchisees. 

Barry Kurtz is a State Bar of California Certified Specialist in Franchise & Distribution Law.

Disclaimer:
This Blog/Web Site is made available by the lawyer or law firm publisher for educational purposes only, to provide general information and a general understanding of the law, not to provide specific legal advice. By using this blog site you understand there is no attorney client relationship between you and the Blog/Web Site publisher. The Blog/Web Site should not be used as a substitute for obtaining legal advice from a licensed professional attorney in your state.

Tuesday
Jan032017

Prop 65 Update: The Rules They Are a Changin'

Litigation AttorneyEnvironmental Litigation

 

Stephen T. Holzer

818.907.3299

 

Proposition 65, known as the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986, among other things requires businesses employing ten or more people to warn consumers if the business’ products contain a chemical scientifically shown to cause cancer or reproductive toxicity.

Prop 65 LawyerThe State maintains a list of such chemicals. Such warnings are delivered by placing “clear and reasonable” warning statements on the products, on product packaging, or on signs at retail establishments selling the products. Historically, the warnings were usually sufficient even if they were somewhat generic – e.g., “This product contains a chemical [our emphasis, for illustrative purposes only] known to the State of California to cause cancer or reproductive toxicity.”

New Prop 65 Rules

After 30 years of living under regulations implementing Proposition 65, the Office of Emergency Health Hazard Assessment (“OEHHA”) has promulgated a whole new set of regulations re clear and reasonable warnings designed in part to “make warnings more meaningful to the public.” 

The new regulations require, among other things, the warning specifically to identify the chemical(s) in question – e.g., “This product can expose you to lead [our emphasis] which is known to the State of California to cause cancer or reproductive toxicity.” The new regulations also provide for specialized warnings for certain industries. The specific warning language listed in the new regulations need not be used if affected businesses can show other language provides a “clear and reasonable” warning; but the safest thing for a business to do is to adopt the language in the regulations.

Businesses have until August 30, 2018 until the new regulations become effective but can operate under the new regulations immediately if desired.

Enforcement Actions

Proposition 65 can be enforced by the government, but if the state chooses not to take action after being notified that adequate warnings were not given, individuals may do so by acting as “private attorneys generals.” Businesses in violation of the warning requirements may face a civil penalty of up to $2,500 a day for the period of violation. Typically though, settlements are much smaller than this draconian amount.

A Prop 65 claim is a particularly difficult claim for a business to defend. The most common defense is to show that people exposed during a course of a lifetime to the chemical(s) at issue would not become ill because the levels of the chemical(s) are too low to do any harm. It is expensive to mount such a scientific defense, requiring the testimony of experts. Small to medium-sized businesses generally choose to settle because the financial burden of litigation is too great.

Although case law suggested that a litigation settlement would protect a party from further Prop 65 claims re the same products and associated chemicals placed at issue by the claim, the law was arguably not completely settled in this regard. The new regulations specify that court-approved warnings will shield the businesses involved in a particular claim from future claims over the same issues.

OEHHA provides extensive information about Proposition 65. Additionally, you can contact us with any questions.

Stephen T. Holzer is the Chair of our Environmental Practice Group and a business litigation attorney. 

Disclaimer:
This Blog/Web Site is made available by the lawyer or law firm publisher for educational purposes only, to provide general information and a general understanding of the law, not to provide specific legal advice. By using this blog site you understand there is no attorney client relationship between you and the Blog/Web Site publisher. The Blog/Web Site should not be used as a substitute for obtaining legal advice from a licensed professional attorney in your state.

LEWITT HACKMAN | 16633 Ventura Boulevard, Eleventh Floor, Encino, California 91436-1865 | 818.990.2120