If Your Cosmetics Use Fragrance or Flavor, this New California Legislation May Affect You

Posted by:

If Your Cosmetics Use Fragrance or Flavor, this New California Legislation May Affect You

California cemented its status as the nation’s leader of cosmetics legislation when it passed the Cosmetic, Fragrance and Flavor Ingredient Right to Know Act of 2020 (“CFFIRKA”). Effective January 1, 2022, California’s newest cosmetic reporting law requires cosmetic companies to publicly disclose all fragrance and flavor ingredients in their products that are found on one of 22 “designated lists”. CFFIRKA supplements the state’s Safe Cosmetics Act (SCA), which for more than a decade has required companies to report to the California Department of Public Health (CDPH) Safe Cosmetics Program whether any of their cosmetic products contain chemicals known or suspected to cause cancer or reproductive toxicity. Now, the reporting requirements extend to fragrances and flavor ingredients that may pose health hazards.

Many cosmetic products contain fragrances or ingredients that give products flavor. In enacting CFFIRKA – a first-of-its-kind consumer “right-to-know law”, the state was concerned that some fragrance and flavor ingredients may have negative health effects, especially to those who are frequently exposed, such as salon workers. Thus, the new law is intended to provide the public with knowledge about the use of such fragrances and flavor ingredients in both retail and professional-use cosmetics, so consumers and workers can determine whether and how to mitigate their exposure.

Each entity whose name appears on the label of a cosmetic product must comply with CFFIRKA, which means companies such as distributors and importers may also have reporting obligations. CFFIRKA requires disclosure if a cosmetic product sold in California contains fragrance and/or flavor ingredients included on one or more of the 22 designated lists identified in California Health and Safety Code Section 111792.6. Among others, the lists include those chemicals on California’s Proposition 65 list as well as chemicals classified by other federal and state agencies and international bodies. The ingredients on the 22 designated lists are subject to change as each list is revised, requiring companies to pay special attention to such changes. All cosmetic products with reportable ingredients sold in California after January 1, 2022, regardless of date of manufacture, must be reported under this mandate. However, there is no requirement under CFFIRKA to make changes to product labels.

Additionally, cosmetic companies must disclose specific “fragrance allergens” if the allergens are present at or above 0.01 percent (100 parts per million) in rinse-off cosmetic products, or at or above 0.001 percent (10 parts per million) in leave-on cosmetics products. The subset of CFFIRKA reportable ingredients called “fragrance allergens” have distinct reporting requirements, and must be reported regardless of their intended purpose in the product (i.e. they must be reported even if they are not used to impart scent or counteract odor). In addition to disclosing the reportable fragrance, flavor, or allergen ingredients, businesses must also disclose each ingredient’s Chemical Abstracts Services (CAS) number, the Universal Product Code (UPC) of the cosmetic product that includes the ingredient, and whether the cosmetic product is intended for professional or retail cosmetic use.

Information reported by companies under CFFIRKA (as well as under the SCA) is made publicly available through the CDPH’s Safe Cosmetics Database, which is available at https://cscpsearch.cdph.ca.gov/search/publicsearch. To date, more than 90,000 cosmetic products have been reported to the CDPH.

Conkle Kremer & Engel attorneys stay current on regulatory and legal developments that affect the cosmetics business.

14
DEC
0

Advertising and Labeling, Beauty Industry, California Trade Regulations, Manufacturing, Personal Care Products, Proposition 65, Regulatory Compliance, Safe Cosmetics Act, Safer Consumer Products Regulations, Sales, Uncategorized

, , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Changing Messages from Courts on AB 51: Now Employers Cannot Require Arbitration Agreements

Posted by:

Changing Messages from Courts on AB 51: Now Employers Cannot Require Arbitration Agreements

Note:  For updated developments on the long-running saga of AB 51, see our February 2023 blog post: “AB51, California’s Law Against Mandatory Employee Arbitration Agreements, is Invalidated”

For those employers who have been following the evolving history of Assembly Bill 51 (“AB 51”), which regulates California employers’ ability to have agreements to arbitrate any disputes with their prospective or hired employees, there is a new twist:  In a September 15, 2021 decision, Chamber of Commerce of the U.S., et al. v. Bonta, et al., Case No. 20-15291, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal reversed a District Court decision to conclude that the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”) did not preempt California AB 51’s ban on employment conditioned upon mandatory arbitration agreements. As explained below, this Ninth Circuit ruling may soon have a substantial impact on employers’ arbitration policies going forward.

In 2019, California passed AB 51, which added section 432.6 to the California Labor Code and section 12953 to the California Government Code to generally prohibit employers from requiring applicants or employees to agree to arbitrate as a condition of employment. AB 51 made it illegal for an employer to require applicants or 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 Conkle firm has written previously about the potential effects of AB 51.

AB 51 had been set to take effect on January 1, 2020, but on December 30, 2019, U.S. District Court Judge Kimberly Mueller issued a preliminary injunction, preventing AB51 from taking effect. Judge Mueller concluded that “AB 51 placed agreements to arbitrate on unequal footing with other contracts and also that it stood as an obstacle to the purposes and objectives of the FAA.” Bonta, No. 20-15291 at 12. In other words, Judge Mueller decided that AB 51 discriminated against arbitration agreements in a manner that is prohibited by the superseding federal law of arbitrations, the FAA.

California appealed Judge Mueller’s ruling.  On September 15, 2021, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued a split (2-1) decision partially reversing the District Court’s order. The Ninth Circuit held that the FAA did not preempt AB 51 with respect to its prevention of conditioning employment on the signing of an arbitration agreement. On this basis, the Ninth Circuit vacated the preliminary injunction that had stopped AB 51’s enforcement, so at present there is nothing stopping AB 51 from taking effect very soon.

For employers, this means that, unless there are further decisions by the Ninth Circuit or the United States Supreme Court, AB 51’s mandate that employers cannot condition employment or continued employment on the signing of an arbitration agreement will shortly go into effect. However, employers should be aware that AB 51 does not apply retroactively, which means that arbitration agreements previously signed by employers before AB 51 can still be enforced.  ([Proposed] Labor Code §432(f).)

A common question Conkle, Kremer & Engel attorneys are receiving is whether, even under AB 51, an employer is allowed to request that employees or prospective employees sign an arbitration agreement. The answer is yes. However, because the Ninth Circuit’s decision is somewhat muddled on this point, there is no clear answer to the natural follow up question, “What can I do if the employee refuses?”

The Ninth Circuit reasoned that the enforcement provisions of AB 51 are preempted “to the extent that they apply to executed arbitration agreements covered by the FAA.” Bonta, No. 20-15291 at 29. The dissent in Bonta attacks the majority’s reasoning as illogical:

In case the effect of this novel holding is not clear, it means that if the employer offers an arbitration agreement to the prospective employee as a condition of employment, and the prospective employee executes the agreement, the employer may not be held civilly or criminally liable. But if the prospective employee refuses to sign, then the FAA does not preempt civil and criminal liability for the employer under AB 51’s provisions.

Bonta, No. 20-15291 at 47. As the dissent argues, the majority’s reasoning could result in liability to the employer where the employer fails while attempting to engage in the prohibited conduct of forcing an employee or prospective employee to sign an arbitration agreement, but the employer would not have liability when the employer succeeds in engaging in that same prohibited conduct.

What does this ultimately mean for employers? We expect the Ninth Circuit’s ruling to be challenged by a request for an en banc review by a larger panel of the Ninth Circuit’s justices, or by a writ to the U.S. Supreme Court (which has recently been quite hostile to Ninth Circuit rulings that it has chosen to review).  Such a challenge could result in yet another “stay” that would effectively restore the injunction issued by Judge Mueller and preclude AB 51 from taking effect. However, unless a stay is issued, AB 51 is set to go into effect in the near future.

While much uncertainty remains as a result of the Ninth Circuit’s ruling, AB 51 will increase potential liability for employers that condition employment on arbitration agreements, as well as provide more power to employees who do not wish to arbitrate. Employers that currently have policies conditioning employment or continued employment on the signing of an arbitration agreement should continue to monitor the status of AB 51, should prepare for the possibility that it will not be able to require arbitration agreements going forward and should reevaluate the benefits and risks related to conditioning employment on the signing of an arbitration agreement.

CK&E attorneys keep updated on developments in the law that affect employers in California, including their rights to arbitrate disputes with applicants and employees.  Stay tuned for additional developments in this saga of AB 51.

30
SEP
0

Banking and Finance, Beauty Industry, Class Actions, Contracts, Business and Finance, Employment Law, Fashion, Food, Craft Beer and Nutrition, Industries Represented, Litigation, Arbitration and Mediation, Manufacturing, Real Estate & Construction, Sales, Technology

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

CCPA Metrics Disclosure Requirement Takes Effect July 1, 2021

Posted by:

CCPA Metrics Disclosure Requirement Takes Effect July 1, 2021

Effective July 1, 2021, annual public disclosure requirements will start to apply to every business that is required to comply with the California Consumer Privacy Act (“CCPA”), and which knows or should know that (alone or in combination) it  buys, receives for the business’s commercial purposes, sells, or shares for commercial purposes the personal information of 10 million or more California residents in a calendar year. This requires these businesses to compile the following metrics for the previous calendar year (January 1, 2020 through December 31, 2020):

  1. The number of requests to know that the business received, complied with in whole or in part, and denied;
  2. The number of requests to delete that the business received, complied with in whole or in part, and denied;
  3. The number of requests to opt-out that the business received, complied with in whole or in part, and denied; and
  4. The median or mean number of days within which the business substantively responded to requests to know, requests to delete, and requests to opt-out.

This information must be disclosed in the business’s privacy policy or posted on its website and accessible from a link included in the privacy policy.  The metrics must be updated annually by July 1. In the disclosure, a business may choose to disclose the number of requests that were denied in whole or in part because the request was not verifiable, was not made by a consumer, called for information exempt from disclosure, or was denied on other grounds.

To review, the CCPA, which became effective on January 1, 2020, grants California consumers the right to control the personal information that businesses collect about them. Through the CCPA, California residents have the right to know what personal information is being collected, whether their personal information was sold or disclosed (and to whom), and may request that businesses delete their personal information.  Currently, only for-profit businesses that collect consumers’ personal information and meet one or more of these criteria must comply: (1) the business has an annual gross revenue in excess of $25 million; (2) the business collects, buys, receives, sells, or shares the personal information of 50,000 or more California-resident consumers, household, or devices; or (3) the business derives 50% or more of its annual revenue from selling consumers’ personal information. For more information about the rights afforded to California residents, and businesses’ obligations under the CCPA, see below for some of our previous CCPA blog posts.

Among other requirements, all businesses that are required to comply with the CCPA must maintain records of CCPA consumer requests and how the business responded to the requests for at least 24 months. These businesses are required to implement and maintain reasonable security procedures and practices in maintaining these records. Such records may be maintained in a ticket or log format, provided that the ticket or log includes the date of request, nature of request, manner in which the request was made, the date of the business’s response, the nature of the response, and the basis for the denial of the request if the request is denied in whole or in part.

In addition, the businesses must establish, document, and comply with a training policy to ensure that all individuals responsible for handling consumer requests made under the CCPA or the business’s compliance with the CCPA are informed of all the requirements in these regulations and the CCPA.

Attorneys at Conkle, Kremer & Engel are staying current with the CCPA and to guide their clients through compliance with this sweeping data privacy law.

30
JUN
0

Banking and Finance, Beauty Industry, California Trade Regulations, Fashion, Food, Craft Beer and Nutrition, Industries Represented, Manufacturing, Privacy, Privacy Rights, Real Estate & Construction, Sales, Technology

, , , , , , , , , , , ,

ADA Lawsuits Attacking Website Accessibility Mount

Posted by:

ADA Lawsuits Attacking Website Accessibility Mount

Over the past few months, we have seen an increase in pre-litigation letters and lawsuits charging Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) violations against commercial websites. These notice and demand letters and lawsuits allege that businesses’ websites violate the federal ADA and similar state laws because they do not give full and equal access to individuals who have disabilities (including blindness, visual impairment and hearing impairment). ADA lawsuits have been filed in federal and state courts throughout the country. No state is immune from such suits, and no business is too small to receive such ADA demands and claims.

One of the factors undoubtedly is the rise of law firms, and consortiums of firms, that specialize in filing such suits. The law firms often work with repeat-plaintiffs with disabilities, much like law firms that specialize in Proposition 65 private enforcement claims in California who work with repeat plaintiffs who purchase products that are then made the subject of notices of violations and lawsuits. The subjects of ADA and Prop 65 laws differ greatly, but the common element is that liability can be fairly easy to establish under both ADA and Prop 65, and both statutes allow awards of attorneys’ fees to the law firms that can far exceed the damages awarded. Some of the law firms that commonly send ADA letters making demands and file lawsuits about website accessibility problems include Pacific Trial Attorneys (Newport Beach, CA), Nye, Stirling, Hale & Miller (Santa Barbara, CA), The Sweet Law Firm (Pittsburgh, PA), Block & Leviton, LLP (Boston, MA), and Carlson Lynch (Chicago, IL).

While there is no universally mandated standard, many large businesses and state and federal agencies follow WCAG 2.1, Level AA standards, which were created by the Web Accessibility Initiative, an internationally recognized organization. Generally, WCAG 2.1 Level AA compliance requires that websites have text components for all images and videos such that assisted technology software may read this content to users. Among other requirements, the standards also require that websites have proper contrast between background images and overlapping font so that visually impaired individuals can use assisting software to be able to read and navigate the website.

To minimize the risk of receiving an ADA violation letter or being sued, we recommend you take at least the following steps:

  1. Request that your digital team ensure and confirm that your website conforms with WCAG standards and, if so, what version/level as there were several earlier WCAG standards prior to the current WCAG version 2.1. To reduce the chances of such claims being made against your company, request your digital team to make your website WCAG 2.1 Level AA compliant and keep it that way until a more updated standard comes into general use.
  2. Add a footer entitled “Accessibility” or “Accessibility Statement” to your website. The footer should preferably appear on the homepage and each webpage, preferably near your “Privacy Policy” and “Terms of Service” footers.
  3. Add a webpage that is linked to the Accessibility Statement footer (e.g. https://www.conklelaw.com/accessibility-statement). This webpage should include an Accessibility Statement discussing your commitment to ensuring accessibility to all and providing contact information to report accessibility barriers and assistance with purchasing products or navigating the website. If you want help formulating your Accessibility Statement, seek qualified counsel to assist you.
  4. Instruct your digital team to periodically review the website as it is updated to ensure there are no access barriers, that all newly uploaded content (including temporary pop-up offers, sale announcements, discount codes, rebates, etc.) complies with WCAG standards, and that all customer service representatives are trained to handle website accessibility inquiries. This training should include advising a responsible person in your digital team of any reported accessibility barriers, and being specifically trained to help disabled customers place orders.

Even if you have not taken these steps before receiving a demand letter or lawsuit from one of the ADA plaintiffs’ lawyers, it’s possible to reduce liability by taking prompt steps. If you received such a website accessibility notice of violation or legal complaint, contact qualified counsel promptly to assist in minimizing the impact and avoid similar future claims. All of the ADA violation matters that Conkle, Kremer & Engel attorneys have defended have been resolved fairly quickly with modest settlements. Others accused of website ADA violations have not been so fortunate, with some reporting having paid tens of thousands of dollars. CK&E attorneys are well qualified to help with all types of ADA and accessibility compliance concerns, whether for websites or physical facilities.

16
AUG
0

ADA - Americans with Disabilities Act, Banking and Finance, Beauty Industry, California Trade Regulations, Fashion, Food, Craft Beer and Nutrition, Industries Represented, Litigation, Arbitration and Mediation, Manufacturing, Real Estate & Construction, Regulatory Compliance, Sales, Technology

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

The California Consumer Privacy Act (“CCPA”) Is Enforceable Beginning July 1, 2020. Is Your Business Ready?

Posted by:

The California Consumer Privacy Act (“CCPA”) Is Enforceable Beginning July 1, 2020. Is Your Business Ready?

You may have noticed a recent influx of personal emails about updates to businesses’ privacy policies and terms and conditions. This may be due, in part, to the California Consumer Privacy Act (“CCPA”) allowing individuals to bring private rights of action against businesses. While the CCPA was effective January 1, 2020, it will be enforceable by the California Attorney General beginning July 1, 2020.

What is the CCPA?

The CCPA grants California consumers the right to control the personal information that businesses collect about them. Through the CCPA, California residents have the right to know what personal information is being collected, whether their personal information was sold or disclosed (and to whom), and may request that businesses delete their personal information. Under the CCPA, personal information is any data that identifies, relates to, or describes a particular person or household. Information such as a person’s name, address, and email address (even a computer IP address) are considered personal information. This applies to information collected online and offline, so the CCPA may apply to businesses even if they do not have a website.

Not all businesses need to comply.

The CCPA applies to for-profit businesses that collect consumers’ personal information and meet one or more of these criteria:

(1) The business has an annual gross
revenue in excess of $25M;

(2) The business collects, buys,
receives, sells, or shares the personal information of 50,000 or more
California-resident consumers, household, or devices; or

(3) The business derives 50% or more of
its annual revenue from selling consumers’ personal information.

Even small consumer-oriented businesses should take particular note of the second criteria: If the business’ website collects what the Act classifies as “personal information,” such as email addresses or the IP Address of the computer accessing the website, it may not take very long to collect that kind of information about 50,000 California-resident devices or consumers and make the business subject to the Act.

Upon receiving a verified consumer request, businesses meeting any of the above-mentioned criteria must give California residents the means to exercise their rights under the CCPA and cannot discriminate against them for exercising these rights. Businesses must complete the consumer’s request within 45 days, although an extension of time may be available, and the process of responding to consumer requests must be supported by reasonable security procedures and practices.

What happens if a business does not comply?

A failure to cure any alleged violation of the CCPA within 30 days of notification of alleged noncompliance will subject businesses to an injunction and civil penalties of no more than $2,500 per violation or $7,500 per intentional violation. And if personal information is improperly disclosed or stolen due to the absence of reasonable security procedures and practices, businesses may be subjected to civil action for injunctive or declaratory relief, damages of $100 to $750 per consumer, per incidentor actual damages (whichever is greater), or any other relief that the court deems proper.

Are you ready to comply with the CCPA? Attorneys at Conkle, Kremer & Engel are staying current with the CCPA to guide their clients through compliance.

26
JUN
0

Banking and Finance, Beauty Industry, California Trade Regulations, Fashion, Food, Craft Beer and Nutrition, Industries Represented, Manufacturing, Real Estate & Construction, Regulatory Compliance, Sales, Technology

, , ,

LGBTQ Discrimination is Now Prohibited Nationally, but California was Ahead of the Trend

Posted by:

LGBTQ Discrimination is Now Prohibited Nationally, but California was Ahead of the Trend

As headlines across the country have blared, on June 15, 2020 in Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that firing an individual for being homosexual or transgender is unlawful employment discrimination on the basis of sex under Title VII of the U.S. Civil Rights Act of 1964. But this rule is nothing new in California, which has long prohibited employment and housing discrimination on the basis of an individual’s LGBTQ characteristics.

Title VII’s message is “simple but momentous”: An individual employee’s sex is “not relevant to the selection, evaluation, or compensation of employees.” The statute’s message for our cases is equally simple and momentous: An individual’s homosexuality or transgender status is not relevant to employment decisions.

Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia, U.S. Supreme Court

In bold and straightforward language the U.S. Supreme Court’s Bostock decision affirmed that any consideration of sex, homosexuality or transgender status in the course of adverse employment decisions is a violation of Title VII, even if there were other factors in the decision:

An employer violates Title VII when it intentionally fires an individual employee based in part on sex. It doesn’t matter if other factors besides the plaintiff ’s sex contributed to the decision. And it doesn’t matter if the employer treated women as a group the same when compared to men as a group. If the employer intentionally relies in part on an individual employee’s sex when deciding to discharge the employee—put differently, if changing the employee’s sex would have yielded a different choice by the employer—a statutory violation has occurred.

California’s equivalent rule is based on its Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), which prevents employers from in any manner “discriminating” against persons based on their sex, gender, gender identity, gender expression or sexual orientation (among many other protected classes). While news stories about the Bostock decision emphasized hiring and firing decisions, “discrimination” can involve much broader employment concerns that involve consideration of prohibited classifications, such as:

  • – Transferring, demoting or taking other “adverse employment actions” with respect to an employee
  • – Paying an employee less than similarly situated employees
  • – Providing fewer or worse benefits to an employee than similarly situated employees
  • – Requiring additional conditions of employment for one employee compared to similarly situated employees

The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision did not weaken California’s existing protections for gay and transgender individuals, but provides an additional source of protection for them. California employers should continue to actively prohibit and take all reasonable steps to prevent discrimination in the workplace, and keep in mind that unlawful “discrimination” can encompass many types of adverse employment actions beyond hiring and firing decisions.

To guide our business clients, Conkle, Kremer & Engel attorneys stay updated on the latest developments in employment law, including anti-discrimination and wage & hour concerns.

18
JUN
0

Banking and Finance, Beauty Industry, Discrimination, Employment Law, Fashion, Food, Craft Beer and Nutrition, Industries Represented, Manufacturing, Real Estate & Construction, Sales, Technology

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

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

Posted by:

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

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.

2
JAN
0

Banking and Finance, Beauty Industry, California Trade Regulations, Class Actions, Contracts, Contracts, Business and Finance, Discrimination, Employment Law, Fashion, Food, Craft Beer and Nutrition, Litigation, Arbitration and Mediation, Manufacturing, Real Estate & Construction, Sales, Sales Commissions, Technology

, , , , , , , , , , , , ,

New California Law to Classify Employees and Independent Contractors

Posted by:

New California Law to Classify Employees and Independent Contractors

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.

12
SEP
0

Banking and Finance, Beauty Industry, California Trade Regulations, Contracts, Business and Finance, Employment Law, Fashion, Food, Craft Beer and Nutrition, Industries Represented, Manufacturing, Real Estate & Construction, Regulatory Compliance, Sales, Technology

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

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

Posted by:

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

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.

7
APR
0

Advertising and Labeling, Beauty Industry, California Trade Regulations, Manufacturing, Personal Care Products, Safe Cosmetics Act

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Prop 65 Settlements Predominantly Benefit Claimants’ Lawyers

Posted by:

Prop 65 Settlements Predominantly Benefit Claimants’ Lawyers

Over the last several years, the  California Attorney General’s Office (OAG) has released annual reports of Proposition 65 settlements through 2017.  These reports make one thing clear – Proposition 65 continues to be a lucrative source for private Proposition 65 claimants and their lawyers, as the total settlement payments continues to rise through the years.

In the past, we noted that private Proposition 65 claimants and their lawyers collected at total of $17 million in settlement payments (comprised of civil penalties, “PILPs” or “Payments in Lieu of Penalties” [also known as “Additional Settlement Payments”] and attorneys’ fees and costs) in 2013, and $20 million in 2012. The trend since then has been upward on all fronts, with one notable recent qualification regarding PILPs.

Proposition 65 contemplates that private claimants will share any civil penalties collected, with 75 percent going to the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) and 25% being kept by the private claimants.  However, Prop 65 claimants are allowed an alternative remedy of PILPs, in which the claimants can pocket 100% of the PILPs and share nothing with OEHHA. All private claimants needed to do is establish that the PILP payments will go to fund some kind of activities with a nexus to the basis for the litigation, and show how those funds would be spent.  Until recently, this was not a big obstacle for Prop 65 claimants. As can be seen from the OAG reports, many Prop 65 claimants are special-purpose entities that contend their own business of pursuing Prop 65 claims serves the environmental interests they are trying to protect through pursuit of more Prop 65 claims.  As a result, these entities could pocket the PILP money to self-fund their own activities to make more Prop 65 claims. Being able to keep all of the PILP money, rather than the alternative of having to give 75% of civil penalties to OEHHA, undoubtedly made PILPs very attractive to Prop 65 claimants. Perhaps the only bright spot in the chart below is the significant reduction (by more than 50%) in PILP recoveries, which followed an amended regulation that went into effect on October 1, 2016 to tighten requirements for PILP settlements. We’ll develop more on this amendment and its effects in a future blog post.

Finally, but clearly most significantly in terms of dollars spent on settlements of Prop 65 claims, private claimants’ lawyers are entitled to recover reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs. As seen in OAG reports, and displayed graphically below, this attorney fee recovery constitutes by far the largest portion of Prop 65 settlements.

2014-2017 Summary of Proposition 65 Resolutions (Updated from OAG Data as of 3/25/2019)
2014-2017 Summary of Proposition 65 Resolutions
(Updated from OAG Data as of 3/25/2019)

Since 2012, total settlement payments have increased substantially, reaching their high-water mark in 2016 but not declining very much in 2017 (2018 figures have not yet been fully released by OAG). Between 2014 and 2017, Prop 65 settlement payments totaled well over $25 million per year.  Overall, the settlement payments are comprised of attorney fee recoveries to claimants’ lawyers, PILP recoveries to claimants, and a smaller number of civil penalties that are shared 25% with claimants and 75% with OEHHA. In sum, every dollar shown in the chart below, other than the OEHHA portion shown in red, has gone to either the Prop 65 claimants or the claimants’ lawyers:

When viewed graphically, it becomes all the more evident that the vast majority of Prop 65 settlements benefit claimants and their lawyers, not OEHHA or any other government agency charged with protecting the public. Questions must arise whether this was really the intent of Proposition 65, however beneficent was its purpose.

2016 was the biggest year for Prop 65 private claimants, according to data released by the California Attorney General’s Office.  In 2016, private claimants settled 760 cases, suing smaller businesses and larger entities like K-Mart, Michaels, Williams-Sonoma, and Twinings.  The settlements for that year totaled over $30 million.

Of the $30 million collected in settlement payments in 2016, attorneys’ fees made up more than $21.5 million, or 71.5% of all private settlements.  In addition, while civil penalties amounted to just over $5 million, or 18% of all private settlements, private claimants can take 25% of any civil penalty assessed as a “bounty.”  In 2016, the civil penalties retained by claimants represented a sum of $1,361,500, or 4.51% of all private settlements.  PILP money made up 10.42% of all private settlements.  That means approximately $3.1 million landed in the hands of private claimants and their attorneys, in addition to the attorneys’ fees and civil penalty bounties they received.

A few firms did particularly well that year.  In 2016, The Chanler Group brought in 242 settlements for over $7.4 million.  83% of this figure, or over $6 million, was paid out in the form of attorneys’ fees and costs.  Brodsky & Smith brought in 99 settlements for nearly $2.5 million.  90% of the nearly $2.5 million, or $2.2 million, in settlement payments went to the lawyers as attorneys fees and costs.

Some claimant representatives obtained settlements that were not quite as disproportionately in favor of attorneys’ fees and costs.  For example, the Center for Environmental Health brought in 93 settlements in 2016, for a total of $4 million, broken down as follows: 11% as non-contingent civil penalties, 16% as PILP payments, and 74% as attorneys’ fees and costs.  Similarly, the Consumer Advocacy Group brought in approximately $4 million across 71 settlements, recovering 11% as non-contingent civil penalties, 14% as PILP payments, and 75% as attorneys’ fees and costs.

The Environmental Research Center brought in 55 settlements for nearly $5 million, and the breakdown of payments was split more evenly: 36% as civil penalties, 31% as PILP payments, and 33% as attorneys’ fees and costs.

In 2017, private claimants continued to pursue Prop 65 claims, settling or obtaining judgments in 693 cases.  The recoveries totaled more than $26 million. As can be readily seen in the chart above, although the total claimants’ recoveries were somewhat lower, they were on par with 2015 recoveries. Further, attorneys fees were proportionately even higher in 2017 than in preceding years, and the reduction was primarily in the PILP recoveries. Attorneys’ fees made up more than $20 million, or 76% of all private settlements, and civil penalties retained by claimants represented an additional $1,431,496 or 5.4% of all Prop 65 recoveries.

If these trends continue, total Prop 65 settlement payouts will continue to rise, imposing the “unnecessary burdens for businesses” that “are cause for public concern,” as the OAG noted in 2014. Conkle, Kremer & Engel routinely represents businesses against Prop 65 claims and lawsuits brought by private claimants, and works with businesses to develop compliance strategies to minimize the risk that they will be future targets of Prop 65 claimants.

5
FEB
0

Beauty Industry, California Trade Regulations, Fashion, Food, Craft Beer and Nutrition, Manufacturing, Personal Care Products, Proposition 65, Real Estate & Construction, Regulatory Compliance, Technology, Uncategorized

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Page 1 of 4 1234