Cal-Peculiarities: How California Employment Law is Different 2022 Edition

354 | 2022 Cal-Peculiarities ©2022 Seyfarth Shaw LLP  www.seyfarth.com 8 Health & Safety Code § 1278.5. 9 Lab. Code § 6404.5(c). 10 Lab. Code § 6404.5(e)(1-7). 11 Gov’t Code § 8350 et seq. 12 8 Cal. Code Regs. § 5110. 13 Veh. Code § 23123(a): “A person shall not drive a motor vehicle while using a wireless telephone unless that telephone is specifically designed and configured to allow hands-free listening and talking and is used in that manner while driving.” 14 Veh. Code § 23123.5(a): “A person shall not drive a motor vehicle while holding and operating a handheld wireless telephone or an electronic wireless communications device unless the wireless communications device is specifically designed and configured to allow voice-operated and hands-free operation, and it is used in that manner while driving.” 15 Cf. Ayon v. Esquire Deposition Solutions, LLC , 27 Cal. App. 5th 487 (2018) (affirming summary judgment for deposition service company whose employee, while using her cell phone, drove her vehicle into the plaintiff; her conversation was with a company court reporters, but the undisputed testimony was that the conversation was personal only and did not pertain to company business). 16 Solus Indus. Innovations, LLC v. Superior Court , 4 Cal. 5th 316 (2018). 17 Id . at 340 (“Actions to enforce the UCL or FAL, which may be brought by government officials and by individuals who have suffered injury in fact … , address the overarching legislative concern ... to provide a streamlined procedure for the prevention of ongoing or threatened acts of unfair competition.”) (internal quotation marks omitted). 18 8 Cal. Code Regs. § 342. 19 AB 2334 (resurrecting substance of suspended Obama Administration rule providing for longer statute of limitations for recordkeeping violations. The Trump Administration had suspended the rule. AB 2334 directs Cal/OSHA to “monitor” federal rulemaking and, if federal OSHA has “eliminated or substantially diminished” electronic recordkeeping requirements, Cal/OSHA must “evaluate how to implement changes necessary to protect the goals” of the proposed rule issued by the Obama Administration in May 2016. AB 2334 also revives an Obama Administration rule amounting to a five-year statute of limitations for recordkeeping violations., specifying that a violative recordkeeping “occurrence” continues until it is corrected, Cal/OSHA discovers the violation, or the duty to comply with the requirement no longer applies. California employers thus can expect to see citations issued by Cal/OSHA for violations going back beyond the normal six- month limitations period. 20 Health & Safety Code § 118600(a). 21 24 Cal. Code Regs. § 11.B.216. 22 2 Cal. Code Regs. § 11034. 23 8 Cal. Code Regs. § 3342. 24 Id. 25 See 8 Cal. Code Regs § 14300.41, including Appendix H, for a list of specific covered employers. 26 AB 203, 2019 bill adding Lab. Code § 6709. 27 8 Cal. Code Regs. § 5141.1 28 8 Cal. Code Regs. §§ 3200-3206. 29 Cal/OSHA , https://www.dir.ca.gov/dosh/coronavirus/COVID19FAQs.html ( last visited May. 26, 2022). 30 AB 685, 2020 bill codified in Lab. Code §§ 6409.6, 6325, and 6432. 31 SB 606, 2021 bill codified in Lab. Code §§ 6317, 6317.8, 6317.9, 6323, 6324, 6429, and 6602