This week’s post was co-authored by Robinson+Cole Labor and Employment Group lawyer Emily A. Zaklukiewicz.
National Equal Pay Day, a presidentially-proclaimed day intended to draw attention to gender-based pay disparities in the United States and beyond, was celebrated across the country on March 15, 2022. In recent years, this day has gained even more…
This week’s post was co-authored by Robinson+Cole Labor and Employment Group lawyer Emily A. Zaklukiewicz.
In recent years, there has been an increased focus on ensuring that employees are receiving equal pay for equal work, which has resulted in a wave of new legislation geared towards closing the wage gap. One recent trend has…
This week we are pleased to have a guest post from Edward Heath and Kevin Daly. Attorneys Heath and Daly are members of Robinson+Cole’s Manufacturing Industry Team and regularly counsel clients on trade compliance, anti-corruption compliance, and other corporate compliance issues.
Proposition 65 is the California law that requires warning labels on products sold to California customers that potentially expose users to certain chemicals which may cause a risk of cancer or reproductive harm. The state maintains a list of approximately 900 chemicals that fall within Prop 65, and the statute provides detailed guidance on what the warning label must contain. Because of the steep penalties that can be imposed under Prop 65 litigation, compliance with the warning requirements is vital for any company selling products into California. Recently, the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) has proposed amendments to the format requirements for Proposition 65 warnings that will require companies to re-assess the sufficiency of their current warnings.
Prop 65 provides two forms of “safe harbor” warnings. If a warning label conforms to the statutory specifics, it is deemed to shield the company from liability.
Continue Reading California Regulators Propose New Regulations to Limit Use of “Short Form” Proposition 65 Warnings
This week we are pleased to have a guest post from Deborah George, a member of Robinson+Cole’s Data Privacy + Cybersecurity Team. Attorney George focuses her practice on data privacy and security, cybersecurity, and compliance with related state and federal laws, advising clients on the development of privacy and security plans, including WISPs, policies and…
This week, a California federal court dismissed a lawsuit brought by two cities against a number of large oil companies seeking to force the companies to fund the cities’ climate change adaptation efforts. The Court held that, while the science behind global warming is real, the problem must be solved by the legislative and executive…
This week, we are pleased to have a guest post from Kevin Daly. Attorney Daly is a member of Robinson & Cole’s Manufacturing Industry Group and also its Trade Compliance Team.
In 2010, California enacted the California Transparency in Supply Chains Act (the “Act”). The goal of the Act is to curtail human trafficking…
Last year, we told you about a lawsuit brought by three California cities against Monsanto Company, alleging that Monsanto is liable for PCB (polychlorinated biphenyl) contamination in San Francisco Bay. The cities—San Jose, Berkeley, and Oakland—sued Monsanto for allegedly creating a public nuisance not by discharging PCBs, but just by manufacturing them.
In September 2016,…
