More “Essential” Changes for Personal Care Products Businesses

Posted by:

On March 18, Conkle, Kremer & Engel first published an alert about the first California city and county stay-at-home orders and their “essential” business exceptions. And on March 20, CK&E updated that blog post to assess the effects of California’s March 19, 2020 statewide “stay at home” Order. But that “California State Order” was vague as to what particular businesses qualify as “essential” to be able to remain in operation at their facilities, and how its terms interacted with the city and county orders also in effect. On March 22, 2020, the California State Public Health Officer responded to the confusion by releasing a “Guidance” list of particular types of businesses that are considered “Essential Workforce” and are permitted to continue to operate at their facilities during the Coronavirus pandemic. Despite the head-spinning changes in the past several days, the California’s State Guidance list at least provides some measure of certainty – and hope – for the personal care products industry.

There are several provisions in the Guidance that appear to permit personal care products manufacturers and sellers to continue to operate, at least in particular ways: There are express exceptions for:

  • “personal care/hygiene products”
  • “cleaning [and] sanitizing supplies”
  • “services that are necessary to maintain the safety, sanitation, and essential operation of residences”
  • “support required for cleaning personnel”
  • “manufacturing [and] distribution facilities [for] consumer goods, including hand sanitizers”
  • “workers supporting the production of protective cleaning solutions”
  • as well as other general references to “sanitation” and “consumer products”

Taken together, these exceptions in the California State Order Guidance make reasonably clear that personal care products that are functional for hygiene should be among the types of products that are essential during a period when cleanliness is potentially life-saving.

While the California State Order Guidance does not include specific reference to “non-hygienic” cosmetic products, the California State Order itself refers to the Department of Homeland Security’s materials on the nation’s “Critical Infrastructure Workforce.” Among those materials, there are specific references to “soap, detergents, toothpaste, hair and skin care products, cosmetics, and perfume” in the Chemical Sector-Specific Plan (see Section A3.5) and the Chemical Sector Profile). For now, based on these materials and barring further developments, businesses appear to be permitted to continue making all personal care products, whether “hygienic” or not.

However, some caution is advisable because enforcement officials could nonetheless decide to distinguish between “hygiene”-related products (such as soaps, shampoos, cleansers and washes, body lotions, and skin creams) and products that are not as “hygiene”-oriented (like hair coloring products, nail polishes, fragrances, and cosmetics). It appears those businesses that can plan to potentially pivot to producing a larger proportion of “hygienic” products may have greater success in remaining open as the situation evolves. Having readily available concise documentation summarizing the “hygiene” products that your company is manufacturing could be helpful if you or your employees receive government inquiries. Of course, if ordered by a government agency to stop production, it is advisable to stop immediately and seek legal guidance – it is not advisable to disregard a direct government order of any kind.

As a final point, the Los Angeles County Order was also updated, and there is now a clear mandate closing barber shops and salons in Los Angeles County, which under previous versions of the order were permitted to operate as essential businesses. We know that this will create tremendous personal hardships for stylists and salon owners, and we are sorry to have to report this development. But however unfortunate this is for the stylists and salon owners (as well as customers, distributors and manufacturers), this development in itself does not alter our broader view that California currently allows continued production and sale of personal care products.

CK&E will continue to monitor developments important to our clients, in the personal care products industry and otherwise, during these uncertain and fast-changing circumstances. Our goal is to help clients continue their business in safe and socially responsible ways, within the bounds of the law as it evolves to meet the challenges of this coronavirus crisis.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
0

The Personal Care Product Industry as “Essential Activity” in the Coronavirus Pandemic

Posted by:

March 20, 2020 Update to Post:

Very Fast-Moving Developments on the Subject of Essential Business Activity

Since Conkle, Kremer & Engel’s first publication of this blog post on March 18, 2020, there have already been significant additional developments, including more government orders. In the early evening of March 19, Los Angeles County and the State of California each issued “stay-at-home” orders that have noteworthy differences from the March 16 San Francisco Bay Area orders. All of these orders appear to be operating in parallel effect, so different requirements may apply depending on your business locations.

With respect to the Los Angeles County order, both establishments selling “personal care products” and “businesses that supply other essential businesses [like grocery stores and pharmacies]” are categorized as “Essential Business” and exempt from the closure effects in Los Angeles County. This “personal care products” exemption is like the Bay Area orders. The Los Angeles County order additionally includes establishments providing “personal grooming services,” like salons and barber shops, emphasizing the importance of personal hygiene to combat the Coronavirus and indicating that, top to bottom, the supply chain of personal care products should continue to operate in Los Angeles County. At least, for now.

The State of California’s order, which applies statewide, appears to be much broader in general application than many county orders, but is quite vague as to what activities are “Essential” and therefore permitted. Instead of listing the specific exempt businesses like the county orders, the California state order refers to the federal Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency’s (“CISA”) list of 16 “Critical Infrastructure Sectors,” which are somewhat malleable business categories that may cause confusion as to which businesses might be exempt. On March 19, CISA released a guidance memorandum that appears to contemplate the manufacture of personal hygiene and cleaning products as being “critical,” but again is not nearly as specific to personal care products as are the various California county orders. Even though it is possible that the California state order supersedes county, city or other local orders, the state order is somewhat unclear as to what business activity is prohibited or remains permitted. For that reason in particular we have, for now, continued to look to the various more specific county orders to provide advice to clients.

CK&E’s personal care product industry sources inform us that there will likely be additional official guidance on the California state order sometime next week, and it is anticipated that such guidance should include specific permission for personal care products manufacturers and sellers to continue at least some scope of business activity. Underlying the various orders there continues to be a strong policy argument to keep personal care products businesses running – they make products that can help reduce the risk of spreading and being infected by Coronavirus.

CK&E will continue to monitor events as they develop and provide up-to-date information to its clients in personal care and other industries in order to assist in navigating through these uncertain and fast-changing circumstances.

Original March 18, 2020 Post:

With states and counties temporarily shuttering certain categories of businesses to combat the Coronavirus pandemic, many manufacturers, distributors, and retailers of personal care products and cosmetics may wonder whether their businesses fall under such executive orders and are required to close. If the March 16, 2020 “stay-at-home” orders issued by six of California’s San Francisco Bay Area counties are any indication, it appears that at least some categories of personal care products, and the businesses that deal in them, may be considered “Essential Activities,” allowing such businesses to remain in operation.

Those Bay Area executive orders (used as a model by Orange County, California for a similar March 17 order, subsequently amended and narrowed March 18) have two pertinent “Essential Activities” sections. The first includes “personal care products” and “products necessary to maintain the sanitation of residences,” and the second includes “businesses that supply other essential businesses [like grocery stores and pharmacies] with the supplies necessary to operate.” These two categories certainly should include personal cleaning and protective items like shampoos, soaps, washes, lotions, balms, and creams, as these products are essential elements of the personal hygiene deemed necessary to combat the Coronavirus. The California Health and Safety Code has long required workers to maintain standards of personal cleanliness with respect to hair, hands, and skin, and in the wake of government directives to wash hands frequently, news outlets like the Washington Post and the Boston Globe have recently quoted medical experts for the importance of moisturizing skin to keep a strong barrier against disease.

With respect to “elective” or “non-hygienic” personal case products such as hair treatments, coloring products, makeup, and nail polish, while the Bay Area orders do refer to the continued sale of all “personal care products” without limitation, it is unclear whether manufacturers or sellers of non-hygienic personal care products will be considered “Essential Activities” in practice. Many hair and nail salons have been closed, and governments have already begun issuing warnings and citations to non-essential companies who have remained open in the face of lockdown orders.

For comparison, the U.S. Department of Transportation’s Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) issued a national emergency declaration to provide “hours-of-service regulatory relief to commercial vehicle drivers transporting emergency relief in response to the nationwide coronavirus (COVID-19) outbreak.”  Among the transported products that are within emergency FMCSA regulatory exemptions are: “Supplies and equipment, including masks, gloves, hand sanitizer, soap and disinfectants, necessary for healthcare worker, patient and community safety, sanitation, and prevention of COVID-19 spread in communities.” US DOT’s FMCSA reportedly considers its regulatory exemptions applicable to mixed shipments of general consumer goods and some of these types of products that are important to healthcare worker, patient and community safety.

Based on these developments, and to the extent possible, businesses dealing in a variety of personal care or cosmetics products may want to consider pivoting to a larger share of production of hygiene-centric products to remain “essential” until issuance of further guidance.

Conkle, Kremer & Engel has decades of advising clients in the personal care, cosmetics, and beauty industry, including with respect to a wide range of regulatory and employment-related matters. CK&E is working with the Personal Care Products Council and closely monitoring the fast-developing Coronavirus legal landscape in order to assist clients with their immediate business, workplace, and workforce needs in this uncertain time.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
0

What California Employers Must Know About Coronavirus and COVID-19

Posted by:

Federal, California and other state and local governments continue to grapple with responding to and reducing the spread of Coronavirus (severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 
(SARS-CoV-2))
and the disease caused by it, COVID-19. In addition to grappling with the personal and family effects, employers must ensure that they have a response plan in place to address Coronavirus’ impact on their business. In doing so, employers must be conscious of responding appropriately in light of the legal and business implications. In some ways, employers are in uncharted territory, but there are guideposts in existing laws and regulations. Here are some of the important considerations for employers to keep in mind in responding to Coronavirus:

Stay Up to Date on Government Guidance

In order to make an educated decision regarding what course of action will best protect employee safety, employers need to stay informed about the latest developments regarding the spread of the virus and adhere to government guidance for responding to the virus.

The Center for Disease Control (“CDC”) has provided Interim Guidance for Business and Employers  meant to help prevent workplace exposures based on the information currently known about the virus. Given the rapidly evolving nature of this situation, employers should check the CDC’s website frequently for updates.

Employee Education to Prevent the Spread of COVID-19 in the Workplace

Some basic steps employers should take to help prevent the spread of Coronavirus and protect workers’ health and safety include:

  • > Educate employees on Coronavirus signs and symptoms and precautions to take to minimize the risk of contracting the virus
  • > Encourage employees to wash hands frequently with soap and water for at least 20 seconds, and avoid touching their mouth, nose, and eyes with unwashed hands
  • > Practice social distancing, including minimizing non-essential travel, meetings and visitors
  • > Provide employees who continue to work in the office with hand sanitizer, flu masks, disinfecting wipes and paper towels, instruct them on proper use, and direct them to diligently clean frequently touched surfaces and objects (such as doorknobs, telephones, keyboards and mice)
  • > Actively encourage employees who show any symptoms of the disease caused by Coronavirus (COVID-19) or are close to others who have, to stay home and not come to work

Formulate a Response Plan

Employers should move quickly to implement workplace policies to prevent the spread of the virus and protect employees. Some examples of potential elements of an employer’s response plan may include:

  • > Establish processes to communicate information to employees and business partners on your infectious disease outbreak response plan
  • > Review human resources policies to make sure that policies and practices are consistent with public health recommendations and existing state and federal workplace laws
  • > Increase the frequency and thoroughness of worksite cleaning efforts, particularly in common areas such as bathrooms, break rooms and kitchens
  • > Seriously consider new policies and practices to reduce congregations and increase the physical distance between employees, customers, vendors and others, to reduce the chances for exposure – for example, staggered break times, phone or video conferences instead of meetings
  • > To the extent feasible, ensure that employees have the requisite computer, phone and other technological capabilities to perform their work from home
  • > Formulate plans for suppliers and workers whose jobs cannot be performed remotely, such as staggered schedules and breaks, off-hours deliveries, or having some tasks performed by outside contractors
  • > Encourage employees who are feeling sick to stay home or work remotely, even if they are not showing Coronavirus symptoms
  • > Prepare to respond to employees who may be nervous or concerned about contracting COVID-19. Employers should be understanding of  employees’ concerns and evaluate each request or issue based on the individual employee’s specific circumstances.

Legal Implications of Workplace Strategy

Although there is currently no California law or regulations addressing an employer’s legal obligations relating specifically to Coronavirus, workplace safety and health regulations in California require employers to protect workers exposed to airborne infectious diseases. Therefore, it is important for employers to understand the legal issues implicated by Coronavirus and the guiding legal principles which will inform the employer’s response to the virus.

OSHA Standards for Maintaining a Safe Workplace

Employers have a legal obligation to provide a safe workplace for employees, and the best way to prevent infection is to avoid exposure. The General Duty Clause, Section 5(a)(1) of the OSH Act of 1970, 29 U.S.C. 654(a)(1) requires employers to provide workers with working conditions free from recognized hazards that are causing or are likely to cause death or serious physical harm, to receive information and training about workplace hazards; and to exercise their rights without retaliation, among others.

Cal/OSHA Requirements

The Aerosol Transmissible Diseases (ATD) standard (California Code of Regulations, title 8, section 5199) requires employers to take certain actions to protect employees from airborne diseases and pathogens such as Coronavirus. The regulations apply only to specific industries, such as health care facilities, law enforcement services and public health services, in which employees are reasonably expected to be exposed to suspected or confirmed cases of aerosol transmissible diseases.

The ATD requires such employers to protect employees through a written ATD exposure control plan and procedure, training, and personal protective equipment, among other things. However, the requirements are less stringent in situations where the likelihood of exposure to airborne infectious diseases is reduced. For more information, Cal/OSHA has posted guidance to help employers comply with these safety requirements and to provide workers information on how to protect themselves.

Medical Leave, Paid Sick Leave Issues and Disability Discrimination

If an employee is forced to miss work due to the need to be quarantined or the need to care for a family member for similar reasons, employers must determine whether the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) or other leave laws apply to an employee’s absence. If the employee has exhibited symptoms and is required to be away from work per the advice of a healthcare provider or is needed to care for a family member, leave laws may apply to the absence.

The FMLA regulations state that the flu ordinarily does not meet the Act’s definition of a “serious health condition,” it may qualify if it requires inpatient care or continuing treatment by a health care provider. In addition, eligible employees might be entitled to FMLA leave when taking time off for examinations to determine if a serious health condition exists, and evaluations of the condition, under the FMLA definition of “treatment.”

In contrast, if the employer itself implements health and safety precautions that require the employee to be away from work, an employer should proceed with caution before designating any time away from work as leave under a specific law. Doing so may require that the employee provide such leave when it otherwise would not be required to do so.

Review your sick leave, PTO (paid time off), or vacation policies. Consider reminding workers that the use of paid sick leave (PSL) is available to help workers who are sick to stay home. However, the employer cannot require that the worker use PSL – that is the employee’s choice. Employers may require employees use their vacation or PTO benefits before they are allowed to take unpaid leave, but cannot mandate that employees use PSL.

Employees in California at worksites with 25 or more employees may also be provided up to 40 hours of leave per year for specific school-related emergencies, such as the closure of a child’s school or day care by civil authorities (Labor Code section 230.8). Whether that leave is paid or unpaid depends on the employer’s paid leave, vacation or other PTO policies.

Paying Workers During a Pandemic

Depending on your organization’s business, some employees may be directed to work from home, temporarily furloughed, or work a reduced schedule.

Furloughs and Layoffs

Short-term layoffs or furloughs are generally permitted as long as the criteria for selection are not protected classes such as race, national origin, gender, etc. Exempt employees generally should continue to receive their full salary for each workweek in which they perform work. In contrast, hourly workers need not be paid for time not worked. A short-term layoff or furlough of less than six months should not implicate notice obligations under the Federal Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification (“WARN”) Act, but may require advance notice under the California WARN Act, which was recently interpreted as having been triggered by certain short-term furloughs.

If non-exempt employees’ work schedules are reduced due to a temporary closure, they need not be paid according to their regular schedule under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). However, they may be eligible for state Disability Insurance (“DI”), and Paid Family Leave (“PFL”) benefits for caring for themselves or their family members. Employees receiving reduced hours because of the effects of COVID-19 may be eligible for unemployment insurance (“UI”). In California, the Governor’s Executive Order waives the one-week unpaid waiting period for DI and UI, so workers can collect those benefits for the first week out of work.

Resources for Additional Information about Coronavirus from the CDC

For more information about the Coronavirus and how businesses and individuals should best respond, refer to the below resources provided by the CDC and California’s Employment Development Department:

CDC: About Coronavirus and COVID-19

CDC: What You Need to Know About Coronavirus

CDC: Interim Guidance for Businesses and Employers

CDC: Frequently Asked Questions and Answers

EDD: Coronavirus 2019 and COVID-19

CK&E Can Help

During these uncertain and rapidly changing developments, employers need to be proactive and careful as to the steps they take to protect their businesses, employees, customers and vendors. Lawyers at Conkle, Kremer & Engel have decades of experience advising California employers and companies doing business in California about labor, regulatory, consumer and contract concerns. We remain available and ready to help our clients navigate these difficult times. Please contact John Conkle, Amanda Washton or any of our attorneys to discuss your concerns.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
0

California Air Resources Board Moves to Update Consumer Product VOC Limits

Posted by:

If you are a manufacturer of Hair Finishing Spray, No Rinse Shampoo, Personal Fragrance Products, Hair Shine or Temporary Hair Color (as well as a number of other consumer products) who sells in California, you might want to start thinking about product reformulation options.

Over the past few months, California’s Air Resources Board (“CARB”), the state agency responsible for investigating, regulating, and enforcing air pollution and emissions standards, has been developing revisions to the regulations relating to volatile organic compounds (“VOCs”) in various consumer products. VOCs are potentially harmful chemical compounds released into the indoor and outdoor environment, including through the manufacture and use of everyday products like cleaning sprays, air fresheners, hair care products, waxes and polishes, insect repellant, and laundry products. CARB consumer product regulations provide definitions for various categories of products and establish limits on the percentages of VOCs for many of the various categories.

From time to time, CARB revisits certain categories and schedules reductions in the permissible VOC limits. The latest round of proposals for VOC limit reductions include the Hair Finishing Spray, No Rinse Shampoo, Personal Fragrance Products, Manual Aerosol Air Freshener, Aerosol Crawling Bug Insecticide, and Charcoal Lighter Material product categories, including substantial reductions of up to 25% of VOCs by product weight. CARB is also considering adding the Hair Shine and Temporary Hair Color product categories to the list of planned reductions. The reductions are proposed to be phased in incrementally, effective 2023 and 2027, to permit manufacturers the time necessary to phase out current product lines and replace them with compliant products.

Final rules have not yet been set, but manufacturers who make and sell such consumer products would be wise to begin preparing to reformulate products to meet the requirements on the anticipated timetable. CARB will be conducting workshops and meetings throughout 2020 to continue to discuss VOC limits and definitions for these categories and others, including working with manufacturers and other industry experts to determine the feasibility of the proposed changes. Conkle, Kremer & Engel will monitor the results of CARB’s work in reducing VOCs and continue to report on the developments.

CK&E routinely assists manufacturers who sell products in California to ensure that their products meet CARB VOC standards and that their product labeling is appropriate, per CARB regulations, for the types of product being sold. CK&E works directly with CARB regarding VOCs and labeling, including representing manufacturers in CARB enforcement actions, in which CARB has the power to levy substantial fines against manufacturers whose products do not comport with VOC limits. With CK&E’s knowledge and assistance, manufacturers can avoid or reduce liability and business disruptions from such potential issues. If your business is facing CARB-related or other regulatory issues, please contact CK&E for a free consultation.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
0

AB 51 at a Crossroad: Can California Employers Still Compel Employees to Arbitrate Disputes?

Posted by:

California Assembly Bill 51 (“AB 51”) has been in the news because it imposes a far-reaching ban on California employers requiring employees to arbitrate employment disputes. AB 51 was set to take effect on January 1, 2020, but its effect was temporarily stopped by a court injunction issued by U.S. District Judge Kimberly Mueller on December 30, 2019, in a lawsuit filed by the U.S. and California Chambers of Commerce. A fuller hearing on whether the court will extend the injunction is set for January 10, 2020. If the injunction is extended, AB 51 will remain in limbo as long as that case remains pending, and very possibly permanently.

AB 51, if it is allowed to take effect, would have far-reaching implications for California employers who use arbitration agreements for resolution of disputes with employees. AB 51 was signed into law by Governor Gavin Newsom on October 10, 2019, and applies to “contracts for employment entered into, modified, or extended on or after January 1, 2020.” The law prohibits any person from requiring applicants and employees, as a condition of employment, continued employment, or the receipt of any employment-related benefit, to waive any rights, forum, or procedure established by the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”) and the California Labor Code.

The Impact of AB 51
Although AB 51 was originally promoted to target the #MeToo movement and was characterized as a anti-sexual harassment law, because many sexual harassment claims against employers have been kept from public view by resolutions in private arbitrations rather than public court proceedings. But the new law covers much more than just sexual harassment claims. In practical effect, AB 51 would prohibit most employers from requiring employees to sign mandatory arbitration agreements for nearly all types of employment law claims, including any discrimination claims covered under FEHA and for any claims brought under the California Labor Code. AB 51 also precludes employers from threatening, retaliating or discriminating against, or terminating any job applicant or employee for refusing to consent to arbitration or any other type of waiver of a judicial “right, forum, or procedure” for violation of the FEHA or the Labor Code.

Nor can employers avoid AB 51 by having a standard arbitration agreement that requires applicants or employees to “opt out” to avoid. The law effectively prohibits employers from using voluntary opt-out clauses to avoid the reach of the bill. New California Labor Code Section 432.6(c) states that “an agreement that requires an employee to opt out of a waiver or take any affirmative action in order to preserve their rights is deemed a condition of employment.”

In addition, new Government Code Section 12953 states that any violation of the various provisions in AB 51 will be an unlawful employment practice, subjecting the employer to a private right of action under FEHA. Although this will presumably require an employee to exhaust the administrative remedy under FEHA, this provision would nevertheless lead to further exposure for California employers who utilize arbitration agreements with their employees. Importantly, however, AB 51 explicitly does not apply to post-dispute settlement agreements or negotiated severance agreements.

Federal Preemption of AB 51?
Generally, the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. § 1, et seq., (“FAA”) preempts state laws like AB 51 that attempt to regulate or restrict arbitration agreements. Under the FAA, a state may not pass or enforce laws that interfere with, limit, or discriminate against arbitration, and state laws attempting to interfere with arbitration have repeatedly been struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court as preempted by the FAA. AB 51, however, expressly states that it does not invalidate a written arbitration agreement that is otherwise enforceable under the FAA. Proponents of AB 51 argue that it is not preempted by the FAA because it only impacts “mandatory” arbitration agreements and does not affect “voluntary” agreements.

Impending Court Challenges
Many questions surrounding the validity and application of AB 51 remain unanswered. Therefore, legal challenges on the ground that AB 51 is preempted by the FAA were inevitable. On December 6, 2019, the U.S. and California Chambers of Commerce filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California, alleging that AB 51 is preempted by the FAA. The complaint seeks a permanent injunction to halt enforcement of AB 51 until its legality is determined. The January 10, 2020 hearing of the preliminary injunction may give strong indication which way the Court will turn on the issue for the time being, but the ultimate determination will likely take years to wend its way through the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal and perhaps the U.S. Supreme Court.

What Should Employers Do In Response to AB 51?
As this challenge to AB 51 makes its way through the courts, employers with ongoing arbitration agreements (or those interested in implementing arbitration programs) face a difficult choice starting in 2020: Play it safe and strike all mandatory arbitration agreements, or maintain the status quo until the litigation plays out. There is no one-size-fits-all approach that will work for every employer.

Employers currently using arbitration agreements should consider either staying the course based on the assumption that AB 51 will be held preempted by the FAA and therefore unenforceable, or suspending their arbitration programs until more clarity on AB 51 is provided. Employers implementing arbitration programs after January 1, 2020 should consider including in their arbitration agreements specific language to conform with Labor Code 432.6 and emphasizing the voluntary nature of the agreement.

The attorneys at Conkle, Kremer & Engel remain vigilant on employment law developments to advise businesses on all aspects of employee legal relations, including updates on the use of arbitration agreements as uncertainty looms.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
0

The Conkle Firm Presents at Personal Care Product Council’s Emerging Issues Conference in Marina del Rey

Posted by:

Zachary Page and Eric Engel being introduced for PCPC Emerging Issues Panel on Product Counterfeiting and Brand Protection

Conkle, Kremer & Engel attorneys Eric S. Engel and Zachary Page presented to beauty industry professionals on hot and developing legal issues in brand protection, grey market and product counterfeiting at the Personal Care Products Council’s November 20, 2019 Emerging Issues Conference. The Conference was held on the 10th Floor of the Marina del Rey Marriott, with a spectacular view over the nearby marina and beach.

Among the topics covered by Zach were issues of registering U.S. trademarks for CBD products, and other previously unregisterable brands. The 2019 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Fourth Estate Public Benefit Corp. v. Wall-Street.com put new importance on registering important copyrights well in advance of their need for infringement claims, and Zach discussed the close relationship with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act’s “DMCA Clock” to takedown infringing online publications. Trends toward false advertising claims based on “natural” and “organic” labeling were also discussed, as were the dramatic increase in medical claim class action and other lawsuits. Zach also briefed the gathered industry experts on the various issues that affect uses of models and others without adequate documentation of consent, which can raise serious right of publicity as well as copyright concerns.

Eric addressed grey market and counterfeiting case development, including the importance of creating “materially different” packaging for U.S. and foreign products. Simple and low-cost ways to help DHS/CBP protect brands against importation of foreign-labeled versions of their own products, as well as counterfeits, was outlined. Also outlined were cost-effective techniques such as recording trademarks online with CBP’s IPR e-Recordation system, Lever Rule Protection, providing CBP with effective Product Identification Training Guides (PITG), conducting IPR Webinars for CBP distribution, and posting e-Allegations online. On combating counterfeiting, Eric addressed Amazon.com specifically because it now accounts for more than half of U.S. online consumer sales, and more than half of Amazon’s online sales are on behalf of third parties in its “marketplace.” Amazon acknowledges no responsibility for sales in its marketplace, beyond closing seller accounts and refunding its customers’ money when they can show that they were sold counterfeit and defective products. Eric discussed the developments in Amazon’s selling and fulfillment practices and in the law of counterfeiting and products liability that suggest that Amazon’s currently-strong denials of responsibility for third party’s products and sales practices may be less compelling in coming years.

CK&E attorneys regularly give presentations to personal care product industry professionals to help them understand and proactively address the latest legal concerns that affect and can inhibit growth of their businesses.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
0

New California Law to Classify Employees and Independent Contractors

Posted by:

On September 11, 2019, California lawmakers passed California Assembly Bill 5 (AB 5), codifying and clarifying the California Supreme Court’s landmark 2018 decision in Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. Superior Court of Los Angeles, which fundamentally altered the test for determining the classification of workers as employees or independent contractors in California. We previously blogged about the Dynamex decision, under which workers are presumed to be employees for purposes of claims for wages and benefits arising under Industrial Welfare Commission wage orders, and companies must meet a three-pronged “ABC” test to overcome this presumption and establish that an individual is an independent contractor. AB 5 would codify the ABC test into law.

AB 5 has been sent to Governor Gavin Newsom, who recently endorsed it in an op-ed for the Sacramento Bee, and he is expected to sign it into law.

Under AB 5, a new Section 2750.3 would be added to the California Labor Code. Section 2750.3, subsection (a)(1), will state that, for purposes of the Labor Code, the Unemployment Insurance Code, and the wage orders of the Industrial Welfare Commission, a person providing labor or services for remuneration shall be considered an employee rather than an independent contractor unless the hiring entity demonstrates that all of the following conditions are satisfied:
(A) The person is free from the control and direction of the hiring entity in connection with the performance of the work, both under the contract for the performance of the work and in fact;
(B) The person performs work that is outside the usual course of the hiring entity’s business; and
(C) The person is customarily engaged in an independently established trade, occupation or business of the same nature as that involved in the work performed.

Under the new law, California workers can generally only be considered independent contractors if the work they perform is outside the usual course of a company’s business. Conversely, a company must classify workers as employees if the company exerts control over how the workers perform their duties, or if their work is part of a company’s regular business.

AB 5 has far-reaching implications for California businesses who classify their workers as independent contractors because it extends the scope of the Dynamex ruling from only Industrial Wage Commission Orders to include claims for wages and benefits under the Labor Code and Unemployment Insurance Code. The Dynamex decision applied only to rules governing minimum wages, overtime and meal and rest breaks, but under AB 5, individuals classified as employees must also be afforded workers’ compensation in the event of an industrial injury, unemployment and disability insurance, paid sick days and family leave.

However, AB 5 is also narrower than the Dynamex decision in that it exempts certain occupations from the new test. The new Labor Code section would provide limited exemptions for certain occupations, including direct sales salespersons, licensed estheticians, licensed electrologists, licensed manicurists (until January 1, 2022), licensed barbers and licensed cosmetologists from the application Labor Code Section 2750.3 and the holding in Dynamex, provided that the individual:
• Sets their own rates, processes their own payments, and is paid directly by clients;
• Sets their own hours or work and has sole discretion to decide the number of clients and which clients for whom they will provide services;
• Has their own book of business and schedules their own appointments;
• Maintains their own business license for the services offered to clients; and
• If the individual is performing services at the location of the hiring entity, then the individual issues a Form 1099 to the salon or business owner from which they rent their business space.

If a company can meet its burden of showing that the individual meets the above criteria, then the determination of proper classification for that individual would be governed by S.G. Borello & Sons, Inc. v. Department of Industrial Relations, the 1989 decision that has been the prevailing law for wage order cases in California prior to Dynamex. Borello established an 11-factor inquiry into the degree of control a company exerts over the worker’s performance of his or her duties: whether the hiring entity has the right to control the manner and means of accomplishing the result desired; the right to discharge at will, without cause; whether the worker is engaged in a distinct occupation or business; the kind of occupation and the skill required in the particular occupation; who supplies the instrumentalities, tools and the place of work for the person doing the work; the length of time for which services are to be performed; the method of payment; whether or not the work is part of the hiring entity’s regular business; and whether or not the parties believe they are creating an employer-employee relationship.

Another aspect of AB 5 worth noting is that it would not allow an employer to reclassify an individual who was an employee on Janaury 1, 2019 to an independent contractor due to the measure’s enactment.

With the law set to become effective on January 1, 2020, companies, particularly in the salon and beauty industry, would be wise to reassess the classification of their workers to ensure compliance with the new law. The attorneys at Conkle, Kremer & Engel have extensive experience advising businesses on best practices regarding proper worker classification, and will be continually monitoring developments related to AB 5 as they occur.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
0

Amazon and Online Retailers Draw Proposition 65 Notices of Violation

Posted by:

Conkle, Kremer & Engel attorney John Conkle was recently interviewed by chemical industry publication Chemical Watch in an article about the continued robust private enforcement of Proposition 65 against large retailers such as Amazon, Target, Walmart, CVS and Costco. John, a leading Prop 65 defense attorney who has counseled and defended companies throughout the supply chain, provided his expert insight in the article, which looked at the astronomical number of notices of violation being served on retailers by private enforcers.

In general, Proposition 65 enforcement has steadily risen over the years, reaching its peak in 2018 with 827 settlements and judgments totaling a record $35 million.

However, under the Proposition 65 regulations as amended last August, retailers are now legally responsible for compliance only under certain prescribed circumstances. In addition to having to provide Internet warnings for products sold online, a retailer is responsible for providing a warning if:
• the retailer is selling the product under its brand or trademark;
• the retailer knowingly introduced a listed chemical into the product or knowingly caused a listed chemical to be created in the product;
• the retailer covered, obscured or altered a warning label that was affixed to the product;
• the retailer received a notice and warning materials for the exposure but sold the product without posting or displaying the warning; or
• the retailer has actual knowledge of the potential exposure requiring the warning and there is no upstream entity that can be held liable for the violation. Actual knowledge means specific knowledge of the exposure received from any reliable source. If the source of this knowledge is a Prop 65 notice of violation, the retail seller is deemed to have actual knowledge five business days after receipt.

Despite the new regulations, retailers are continuing to be served with notices of violation. For example, while Amazon has received 1,027 notices of violation since the California Attorney General’s Office began keeping track in 2000, most of those notices were served in recent years: 255 in 2016, 404 in 2017, 180 in 2018 and 57 so far this year. Private enforcers often include retailers in their notices to apply settlement pressure on manufacturers, distributors and other entities upstream in the supply chain, who are often required to enter into indemnity agreements with their retailers. Retailers should continue to be vigilant about having adequate indemnity agreements in place, ensuring that the products they sell have been tested for compliance with Proposition 65 and if warnings are required, to provide the appropriate warnings.

Conkle, Kremer & Engel attorneys routinely assist clients in ensuring compliance with Proposition 65 and other regulations, and defend businesses against Proposition 65 when a notice of violation is received.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
0

California Brews Up Broader Definition of Beer

Posted by:

The definition of “beer” got a little broader in California, thanks to the passage of Assembly Bill 205 (AB 205), which was signed into law by Governor Gavin Newsom on July 9, 2019.

AB 205, introduced by Assemblymember Tom Daly (D-Anaheim), expands the definition of “beer” under California’s Alcohol Beverage Control Act (California Business & Professions Code Section 23006) by allowing beer to be produced using honey, fruit, fruit juice, fruit concentrate, herbs, spices and other food materials as adjuncts in fermentation.

Under the prior law, beer was strictly defined as a grain-derived beverage – “any alcoholic beverage obtained by the fermentation of any infusion or decoction of barley, malt, hops or any other similar product, or any combination thereof in water.” Accordingly, the prior definition of “beer” required a wine license in order to use fruit in the fermentation process.

However, California’s old definition of “beer” was out of step with federal regulations adopted in 2006 by the Department of the Treasury and its Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, which allow the use of honey, fruit, fruit juice, fruit concentrate, herbs, spices and other food materials as adjuncts in fermenting beer. And while AB 205 is largely seen as bringing California’s definition in line with federal regulations, Assemblymember Daly’s office explained that AB 205 “modifies the definition of beer in a way that will allow California breweries to expand their market, satisfying the consumer’s desire for more varied and unique styles of beer.”

The new definition is likely to have swift impact. California has more craft breweries than any other state, with more than 980 craft breweries as of January 2019, per the California Craft Brewers Association trade association. Conkle, Kremer & Engel attorneys counsel clients in the craft brewery industry.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
0

Conkle Firm Attorneys and PCPC Lobby California Legislature about SB 574 and AB 495

Posted by:

On April 3, 2019, Conkle, Kremer & Engel attorneys John Conkle and Raef Cogan joined the Personal Care Products Council (“PCPC”) in Sacramento, California to lobby members and staff of the California Legislature on pending legislation important to members of the personal care products industry, including Senate Bill 574 and Assembly Bill 495.

CK&E attorneys, PCPC staff and participating industry representatives visited legislative offices to advocate for positions favored by personal care products industry members. Over the course of more than 15 meetings with legislators and their aides, the group focused its advocacy on two pending bills that, if enacted, would have significant consequences for the U.S. cosmetics industry as a whole. Conkle, Kremer & Engel has previously written about Senate Bill No. 574 (“SB 574”) introduced by Senator Connie Leyva and Assembly Bill No. 495 (“AB 495”) introduced by Assembly Members Al Muratsuchi and Buffy Wicks. These are important bills that if enacted would have significant consequences for the U.S. cosmetics industry as a whole.

SB 574, also known as the “Toxic Fragrance Chemicals Right to Know Act of 2019,” would require cosmetic manufacturers to disclose fragrance of flavor ingredients that appear on any one of 27 “designated lists.” CK&E attorneys explained during the meetings that a viable version of this bill may be presented in the future, but that as written SB 574 threatens cosmetic companies’ confidential business information, results in duplicative regulation and relies on faulty, unscientific “lists” to determine what information manufacturers must disclose.

AB 495, is entitled the “Toxic Free Cosmetics Act,” and would dramatically increase the number of cosmetics listed as “adulterated,” without justification. CK&E attorneys explained that under AB 495 as proposed, any cosmetic that contained even trace amounts of identified ingredients would be labeled “adulterated” and would be banned outright. Some ingredients sound scary, like lead, but are in fact naturally occurring and cannot be completely eliminated from cosmetic (or many other) products. Others are preservatives that have been deemed completely safe for use in cosmetics by the FDA and other regulatory bodies.

Both SB 574 and AB 495 are coming up for committee vote soon. Conkle, Kremer & Engel will stay apprised of the results and will provide updates on this legislation that is important to the cosmetics industry.

PCPC California Lobby Day also featured presentations from Allen Hirsch, Chief Director of the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (“OEHHA”), Karl Palmer from the Department of Toxic Substances Control (“DTSC”), Joseph Calavita from the Air Resources Board, and Senator Bill Quirk, Chair of the Environmental Safety and Toxic Materials Committee. The regulators spoke about important upcoming actions by their agencies. Senator Quick focused on the importance of protecting our environment from toxins, primarily greenhouse gasses. Each of these presenters stressed a need for more information sharing between the industry and the respective regulatory and legislative bodies.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
0
Page 1 of 7 12345...»