386 | 2025 Cal-Peculiarities ©2025 Seyfarth Shaw LLP www.seyfarth.com 13 Gov’t Code § 12954. 14 8 Cal. Code Regs. § 5110. 15 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.” 16 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.” 17 Cf. Ayon v. Esquire Deposition Sols., LLC, 27 Cal. App. 5th 487 (2018) (affirming summary judgment for deposition service company whose employee drove her vehicle into the plaintiff while using her cell phone; her conversation was with a company court reporter, but the conversation was personal and did not pertain to company business). 18 Solus Indus. Innovations, LLC v. Super. Ct., 4 Cal. 5th 316 (2018). 19 Id. at 346 (“Neither do the UCL or FAL claims obstruct another of the federal OSH Act’s purposes, namely to encourage the States ‘to assume the fullest responsibility for the administration and enforcement of their occupational safety and health laws.’”) (internal citations omitted). 20 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 citations omitted). 21 8 Cal. Code Regs. § 342. 22 AB 2334 (an amendment to Gov’t Code § 65915, resurrecting the substance of a suspended Obama Administration rule providing for a longer statute of limitations for recordkeeping violations). The Trump Administration had suspended the previous 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 recordkeeping violation “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. 23 Health & Safety Code § 118600(a). 24 24 Cal. Code Regs. § 11.B.216. 25 2 Cal. Code Regs. § 11034. 26 Health & Safety Code § 118600(e). 27 8 Cal. Code Regs. § 3342. 28 Id. 29 Id. 30 See 8 Cal. Code Regs. § 14300.41, including Appendix H, for a list of specific covered employers. 31 AB 203, 2019 bill adding Lab. Code § 6709. 32 8 Cal. Code Regs. § 5141.1. 33 8 Cal. Code Regs. § 3205. 34 Labor Code § 6409.6. 35 SB 606, 2021 bill codified in Lab. Code §§ 6317, 6317.8, 6317.9, 6323, 6324, 6429, and 6602 36 SB 553, 2023 bill amending, repealing, and adding to Code of Civil Procedure § 527.8, amending and adding to Labor Code §§ 6401.7 and 6401.9. 37 SB 1167, adding to Labor Code § 6720.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTkwMTQ4