Touted as strengthening the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA), California Attorney General Xavier Becerra is backing two new bills that would impose additional requirements on California businesses while also eliminating their right to cure problems or seek guidance from the Attorney General’s office regarding compliance with the CCPA.

The U.S. Department of Transportation (“DOT”) has requested public comment on two petitions to exempt driverless vehicles from certain safety standards, one from General Motors, and another from lesser known Nuro, Inc. Petitions to the Department of Transportation are requests by the public to have Federal Regulations changed or exemptions from them granted. These petitions seek temporary exemptions. What is notable about these petitions is that both are requesting exemptions to be able to move farther away from the traditional notion of a motor vehicle, and closer to the futuristic notion of “mobility pods” with no driver controls.

California’s Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986 makes it unlawful for a business with ten or more employees to expose a person in California to a chemical “known to the State of California to cause cancer” or “reproductive harm” without providing a clear and reasonable warning.

As we previously reported, over the past several years, the Department of Labor (DOL) has been attempting to update its minimum salary requirements for the federal white collar overtime exemptions. Back in June 2015, the Department of Labor under the Obama administration proposed new standards that were scheduled to take effect on December 1, 2016. But in November of 2016, as a result of numerous legal challenges to the new rule, a court issued a nationwide preliminary injunction blocking it, and in September 2017, a federal judge struck it down entirely. In July 2017, the new administration directed the DOL to institute additional fact-finding for updated salary rules, and on March 7, 2019, the DOL announced the new proposed rules.

Although the principles of non-discrimination and equal employment opportunity have been ingrained in law and employment policies for decades, the continual evolution of employment discrimination law calls for employers to regularly review and update their EEO policies, including the ever-expanding list of protected characteristics.

As we reported last year, the Dynamex v. Superior Court case “radically modified the test for determining whether someone working for a business is an employee or independent contractor.” Early indications are that leading gig economy employers remain unsure how to resolve treatment of individuals who do not neatly fit the traditional definition of either employee or independent contractor.

Being an employer in California is increasingly challenging. In the last few years, new laws have emerged that present additional risks to employers, not just with respect to employees, but also with respect to job applicants.