MICHAEL SULLIVAN & ASSOCIATES BLOG

California Senate Bill 487, signed into law in 2025, brings significant changes to the way employers and insurers can recover costs in workers’ compensation cases involving peace officers. The new law, heavily opposed by the employer community, places strict limits on subrogation recovery and eliminates a long-standing credit right that has been a cornerstone of cost control in public safety claims.

These changes will have a substantial impact on counties, cities, and other public entities that handle workers’ compensation claims for law enforcement officers.

Two weeks ago, we reported on some exciting new reforms to the Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (“PAGA”) that were beginning to take shape in the California Legislature. We are now happy to report that those changes have been formally adopted and approved!

These changes only apply to future PAGA lawsuits for which a notice was filed with the Labor and Workforce Development Agency (“LWDA”) after June 19, 2024. Pending PAGA lawsuits and ones filed based on LWDA notices that predate June 19, 2024 are not impacted. Still, the reforms provide employers with new tools to manage their PAGA exposure. Now that we have had the chance to review the text of “PAGA 2.0”, here are the biggest improvements and drawbacks we see coming down the pike.

Governor Newsom’s office announced Tuesday, June 18th, that much needed and long-awaited reform to the Private Attorneys General Act ("PAGA") is finally on the horizon! While we’re still waiting to see the exact text of the bill, here is what we expect from "PAGA 2.0" based on a release from the Governor’s office.

We’re excited to announce that our Employers’ Legal Lounge podcast is now live! Episode 1, with special guest Tara Fournier, is ready to listen to on your favorite podcast app or website — just visit the podcast's web page for links.

Tune in every month as Michael Sullivan & Associates attorney, Eric De Wames, and a rotating roster of guest experts discuss the most recent developments, emerging trends, and effective strategies within California's dynamic employment law environment. Each month, Eric will dive deep into the most recent cases, legislation, and general trends to provide you with valuable insights and guidance for navigating the complex world of employment regulations in the Golden State.

The California Legislature has concluded its final session of the year, passing an abundance of new employment laws. Now that the Governor’s time to veto, approve, or allow these bills to take effect has passed, here are some key new laws that California employers should be aware of. Please note that this is only a summary of important new laws, and covers neither every new law nor every aspect of the laws below.

California employers scored a victory this week, as both the CA Supreme Court and US Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit confirmed that employers owe no duty of care to prevent the spread of COVID to members of their employees’ households. The facts of the case, Kuciemba v. Victory Woodworks, Inc., were actually super interesting!

As a furniture and construction company with jobsites all over California, Victory was declared an essential business during the COVID lockdowns of 2020. While the lockdown was ongoing, several employees at one of its jobsites contracted COVID. Instead of requiring its non-infected employees at that site to quarantine, Victory reassigned them to other jobsites, including Mr. Kuciemba’s, in violation of the health orders in place at the time. Not surprisingly, one of the reassigned employees gave Mr. Kuciemba COVID, and in turn, Mr. Kuciemba gave it to his wife. While she was fortunate enough to survive her bout with COVID, she was hospitalized for a considerable time, during part of which she required a respirator to breathe. The Kuciembas sued Victory, claiming (among other things) that Victory caused Mrs. Kuciemba’s injuries by negligently failing to protect its employees from the spread of COVID.

The California Supreme Court just handed down its long-awaited decision in Adolf v. Uber Technologies, Inc., (“Uber”), and you are probably wondering how that ruling affects the arbitration agreements you have in place with your employees.

The short answer is: it doesn’t. Exhale!

Kuciemba v. Victory Woodworks, Inc.: Employer Does Not Owe a Duty of Care to Prevent the Spread of COVID-19 to Employees' Household Members

Employees have the right to file workers' compensation claims when they contract COVID-19 as a result of their employment. Workers' compensation is the exclusive remedy for an employee's COVID-19 claim.

Generally, the exclusive remedy doctrine bars not only civil claims against an employer by an injured worker, but also extends to claims brought by all others that are collateral to or derivative of the employee's injury. This is known as the derivative injury rule.