Employer in California can terminate an employee based on false accusations of sexual harassment
New California Law to Alter Dispute Resolution in Tech Industry
A significant change is on the horizon for the technology industry, as a new law set to take effect on January 1, 2017, will require disputes with California employees to be resolved under California law within the state.
Currently, California employers do not adhere to resolving disputes with employees in California under California law. However, the amendment to the California Labor Code aims to change this practice.
Some California employers offer various communication platforms for dispute resolution, such as Facebook, Messenger, Twitter, Pinterest, LinkedIn, WhatsApp, and email. With the new law, these platforms may no longer suffice for resolving disputes, as they will need to comply with California's legal requirements.
The new law could potentially increase the legal complexity for California employers, as they will need to ensure their dispute resolution practices align with California law. This shift could lead to more consistent and fair dispute resolutions for California employees.
The California Supreme Court has issued several rulings relevant to employee rights, including overtime, on-call rest breaks, and dispute resolution locations (arbitration). In the case of overtime, the Court affirmed that California employees are entitled to overtime pay at 1.5 times their regular rate for hours worked beyond 8 in a day or 40 in a week.
In the matter of on-call rest breaks, while the Supreme Court has not issued specific recent rulings, the landmark Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Superior Court (2012) decision clarified rest and meal break rules. It held that employers must provide rest breaks but are not required to ensure employees take them, as long as employers make break times truly available without discouragement or pressure.
Regarding dispute resolution locations (arbitration), the California Supreme Court addressed arbitration fee payment deadlines under the strict anti-arbitration statute (California Code of Civil Procedure §1281.98) in the Hohenshelt v. Superior Court (2025) case. The Court upheld the statute against federal preemption but rejected the automatic forfeiture of employers’ right to arbitrate merely for late fee payment, effectively softening the statute’s harsh consequences.
In summary, the Supreme Court tends to uphold worker protections on overtime and breaks while balancing employer procedural rights in dispute resolution, especially regarding arbitration fee payments. More specific rulings on on-call rest breaks may be found in appellate or administrative interpretations rather than Supreme Court decisions at this time.
Under the new law, disputes with California employees, as well as those who reside and work in California, will no longer be resolved outside of California. This change could potentially lead to more consistent and fair dispute resolution for California employees, and employers will need to adapt to the new requirements.
- Given the new law in California, employers may find it essential to incorporate science-based workplace-wellness strategies to foster health-and-wellness among their California employees, as this could help in creating a harmonious and compliant working environment.
- As California employers revise their dispute resolution practices to adhere to California law, they might also consider integrating health-and-wellness programs, which are often rooted in scientific research, to further promote a positive and productive work environment, thereby reinforcing the law's intent of ensuring fairer resolutions for their employees.
