As we transition back to the “normal” times before March 2020, many employers are wondering whether they can mandate that their employees be vaccinated for COVID. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) and the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing (“DFEH”) have released guidance, stating that subject to certain religious and medical exemptions, the answer is yes. However, we do not recommend employers implement a vaccine mandate, and instead recommend employers take a more relaxed and voluntary approach to obtaining high rates of vaccination among their employees. We have provided the following Frequently Asked Questions and answers.

There are many reasons why employers may want or need to know whether their employees have been vaccinated against COVID-19: the safety of staff and customers, a desire to modify mask rules, or even legal mandates. As a general rule, employers may ask employees for proof that they have received a COVID vaccination, but there are several factors that should be considered if and when doing so. These include ensuring the questions are asked correctly, that privacy measures are in place, and that employee information is safeguarded.

The Centers for Disease Control (“CDC”) caused a stir on May 13, 2021, when it issued its “Interim Public Health Recommendations for Fully Vaccinated People.” This guidance allows fully vaccinated individuals to forgo wearing masks and some social distancing protocols in certain circumstances. It is a welcome relief for many, but came as a surprise to state and local governments and the businesses currently operating under COVID protocols.

As a result of the frequency of its occurrence in food products, acrylamide has become a favored target for the private law firms that bring cases against companies for failing to provide Proposition 65 mandated warnings. In 2020, there were some 453 Notices of Violation involving alleged acrylamide-related violations served, many of them naming multiple violators. In the first quarter of 2021 alone, there were 109 such Notices.

Since the inception of California’s Anti-SLAPP statute, federal courts have grappled with how to adapt the law for application in federal proceedings. Federal courts sitting in diversity apply the substantive law of the jurisdiction in which they sit, but not the procedural law. The source of the shifting jurisprudence is the reality that the substance of the Anti-SLAPP law is to a large degree the procedure it imposes that allows for courts and litigants to quickly resolve a “Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation” (what the acronym “SLAPP” stands for), while minimizing the burden on the moving party by imposing a discovery stay, and providing for fees for a successful movant.

At long last, all adult Americans have access to the COVID vaccine. This raises new questions regarding employers’ ability to mandate vaccinations, what type of liability they may face with respect to unvaccinated employees contracting or spreading COVID, and what rights employees have to access vaccinations. This article examines these issues and concludes that while mandating vaccinations is likely legally defensible, other approaches may limit legal liability while also avoiding major headaches.

Courts across the country took different approaches during the pandemic. This article summarizes the state of civil jury trials in a select few key California counties in which Scali Rasmussen practices regularly.

The deposit is a standard and integral term in buy-sell agreements, whether in an asset purchase agreement (an “APA”) or stock purchase agreement. The focus here will be APAs, since they are used for the vast majority of automobile dealership buy-sells.

On April 1, 2021, the US Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision in a highly anticipated case regarding the definition of automatic telephone dialing systems (“ATDS”) under the Telephone Consumer Privacy Act (“TCPA”). The decision authored by Justice Sotomayor narrows the definition of an ATDS and could have a major impact on how businesses may market to consumers using telephone voice and text.

On January 20, 2021—his very first day in office—President Joe Biden issued an executive order directing agencies to review numerous actions taken by the previous administration. One item under review is the Trump Administration’s revocation of a waiver allowing California to set its own vehicle-emission standards. Although twenty states sued the Trump Administration for that action, President Biden has asked the courts to pause litigation while his administration reviews the waiver revocation.