Gravel2Gavel Construction & Real Estate Law Blog

The Cal/OSHA standards, located at Title 8 Cal. Code of Regs.§§ 1532.1, 5198, 5194, change how employers are required to notify their employees about potential lead hazards. Employers are required to inform their employees about potential lead hazards with work area signs and labels for lead-contaminated equipment and clothing that specifically include language about lead’s danger to the central nervous system and reproductive health. Employers must comply with the new labeling rules by June 2015 and new signage rules by June 2016. Cal/OSHA has made available downloadable and printable Lead Warning Signs in English and Spanish and Lead Warning Labels in English and Spanish, and provided tips on posting the signs and using the labels.

Additional Sources: California Department of Public Health, For Employers – Lead Warning Signs and Labels; California Department of Public Health Winter 2015 Newsletter; CSLB Spring 2015 Newsletter, Employers Must Use Cal/OSHA’s New Lead Warning Signs

In its 2015 Spring Newsletter, the California Contractors State License Board in its article titled Away From a Construction Site? Leave Contact Info with Your Crew encouraging project supervisors and prime contractors to leave a business card with their employees in case a member of California’s Labor Enforcement Task Force (LETF), which includes the CSLB, Department of Industrial Relations’ Division of Occupational Safety and Health (CalOSHA) and Division of Labor Standards Enforcement, and Employment Development Department, drops by the project. During a drop-by visit, the LETF investigator is trying to identify the company, contractor license number and a telephone number where a responsible party can be reached so that the investigator can confirm that all licensing, workers’ compensation insurance, employment, and safety laws are being followed. If there is no one in able to answer these questions, the investigator must make a return visit to the project. The CSLB reported in its newsletter that, in 2014, LETF conducted 613 inspections of active job sites and, 84% of the time, the project was not in compliance with state license, labor, tax, health, safety, or insurance regulations.

January 1, 2015, the new C-22 Asbestos Abatement contractor license classification in California became official. The Asbestos Certification (contemplated by Business & Professions Code § 7058.5) continues to be available for contractors who perform asbestos-related work only within the scope of their contractor licenses and these contractors are not required to add the C-22 classification to their existing license.
Continue Reading ›

Today, Pillsbury attorney Ray Sweigart posted his client alert titled English Court Trumps Arbitration Clause in Favor of One-Stop Litigation. The Alert discusses the English High Court in Monde Petroleum SA v WesternZagros Ltd [2015] EWHC 67 (Comm) recently deciding whether a dispute resolution clause in a settlement agreement referring disputes to the English court superseded an arbitration provision in the underlying contract so as to govern resolution of subsequent disputes arising out of both agreements. The court held that the later clause controlled, and it applied a presumption of one-stop adjudication as evidenced by the language of the clause itself as well as the surrounding factual circumstances, including the timing of the agreement to the conflicting provisions.

Today, Pillsbury attorneys Ken Taber, Julia Judish and Keith Hudolin published their client alert titled New York City Largely Bans Employers from Considering Consumer Credit History. The Alert discusses New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio‘s recent signing into law of a bill barring employers in New York City from discriminating against employees and applicants based on their consumer credit histories. The Alert explains, among other things, that the exceptions to this new law are much more limited than the exceptions found in similar laws in other states. It encourages New York City employers to review their employment policies to ensure that their employment policies and decisions do not give employees or applicants potential claims of “consumer credit history” discrimination.

Additional Source: New York Int. 0261-2014

Recently, New York Senate Bill 5043 was introduced by Senator Tony Avella. It was read twice and ordered printed, and when printed to be committed to the Committee on Housing, Construction and Community Development. If signed into law, the bill would amend the administrative code of the City of New York to add Section 28-118.22 to read that “all new building construction or alterations of current buildings in an R1, 2, 3 or 4 zoning areas shall complete construction and/or alterations and obtain a certificate of occupancy within four years of the initial permit for such construction and/or alteration. If such construction is not complete and a certificate of occupancy [] is not obtained within four years, the Department may demolish the structure and return the site to a clean and safe condition at the property owner’s expense.” The bill also proposes to amend Section 28-214.1 of the administrative code of the City of New York to read that “[a]fter a period of two years, if no attempt is made to rehabilitate the ‘sealed’ status of such building pursuant to subdivision one of this section, such building may be demolished at the property owner’s expense pursuant to Section 28-214.1.5 of this Article.” If signed into law, the bill would take effect immediately.

In a companion case decided on April 24, 2015, the Texas Supreme Court held that the Texas Citizens Participation Act (Act) can apply to private as well as public communications. In its per curiam opinion in Lippincott and Parks v. Whisenhunt, the Court held that controversial private communications on a matter of public concern, here the adequacy of medical services, can also trigger the protective provisions of the Act. Ultimately, the allegation made in the complaint must be measured against the evidentiary standards clarified in the decision in In re: Steven Lipsky.