CSU Channel Islands Foundation and Rabobank present Chris Botti, Live in Concert! Join us for our annual President’s Dinner & Concert, a fundraiser to support the students at CSUCI. Saturday, October 13 at the Commemorative Air Force Museum in Camarillo. Tickets: VIP- $175; General Admission- $60 Don’t miss out, purchase your tickets today! All proceeds will support students, raising funds for critical needs and creating opportunities.
Purchase tickets at: GO.CSUCI.EDU/PC18
United Way of Ventura County’s 14th annual Spirit Awards Gala presented by Procter & Gamble will take place on Thursday, September 13, 2018 at The Padre Serra Center in Camarillo, from 6:00-8:30pm. An exclusive VIP Sponsor Reception will be held at 5:00pm, invitation only. Dinner will be served along with the award ceremony.
A Signature cocktail will be provided by Tito’s, Handmade Vodka. Tito’s Handmade Vodka is a proud supporter of United Way.
For the 2nd year, Procter & Gamble will be the Presenting Sponsor for the 2018 Spirit Awards Gala. United Way will be honoring Mr. William “Bill” Kearney with its Lifetime Achievement Award. Along with Mr. Kearney, Bank of America will be recognized with the Roy Pinkerton Award for Top Corporate Citizenship. United Way will also be honoring, Mr. Bob Brunner, a United Way Board Member with the Milton M. Teague Award for Outstanding Community Volunteerism, Ms. Maggie Tougas, CEM/Emergency Manager with California State University Channel Islands and chair of VOAD with the Douglas Shively Award for Outstanding Community Impact, and the Annenberg Foundation, with its President’s Award.
The Spirit Awards is an invaluable recognition of our top Ventura County community and corporate leaders. Without individuals and companies like these, United Way would not be able to sustain the work to advance the common good.
For sponsorship opportunities, ads, and/or tickets to the event, please call (805) 485-6288 ext. 229
or email: Vicki.Raven@vcunitedway.org. To purchase tickets, please visit,
A California Chamber of Commerce-opposed job killer bill to ban settlement agreements and arbitration agreements for labor and employment claims is awaiting action by the Senate.
The CalChamber has tagged AB 3080 (Gonzalez Fletcher; D-San Diego) as a job killer because it will create more litigation, significant delays in the resolution of disputes, and higher costs for employers and employees.
Besides interfering with and essentially eliminating settlement agreements for labor and employment claims, AB 3080 exposes employers to criminal liability regarding arbitration agreements and essentially prohibits arbitration of labor and employment claims as a condition of employment.
AB 3080 is likely preempted under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) and will only delay the resolution of claims. Banning such agreements benefits the trial attorneys, not the employer or employee.
by federal law.
AB 3080 interferes with and will essentially eliminate settlement agreements as it prohibits an employer from requiring an applicant or employee to waive any right, forum, or procedure, or the right to pursue any claim in court under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) or the Labor Code as a condition of any “contractual agreement.”
Precluding the informal resolution of civil claims would simply overwhelm California’s judiciary system by forcing all claims to be tried by a jury or judge, creating significant delays that would harm individuals who have suffered a wrong.
Given where AB 3080 provisions have been placed in the Labor Code, any violation will be a misdemeanor. Accordingly, an employer will face not only civil liability for any violation of the various provisions of AB 3080, but can face criminal charges as well.
Pre-Empted by Federal Law
AB 3080 prohibits arbitration agreements made as a condition of employment for any claims arising under the Labor Code or FEHA and/or including class action waivers. Arbitration is a less formal, less costly, and less time-consuming forum to resolve a dispute. The cost savings is not in the compensation paid to the employees; it is in the fees paid to attorneys.
Although studies demonstrate that employees generally win the same percentage of cases in arbitration, if not more, the trial attorneys may not recover as much in fees. The ultimate beneficiaries of an arbitration and class action waiver ban are trial attorneys, not the employers and not the employees.
AB 3080 is also likely preempted, and therefore will create significant litigation without actually providing any benefit to employees. AB 3080 is very similar to AB 2617 (Weber; D-San Diego), passed and signed into law in 2014, which prohibited as “a condition of entering into a contract for the provisions of goods or services” the waiver of a forum for the resolution of claims, i.e. an arbitration clause. On March 14, 2018, the Second District Court of Appeal held in Saheli v. White Memorial Medical Center that AB 2617 was preempted under the FAA. The court stated:
“The above legislative history clearly shows the motivating force behind the enactment of AB 2617 was a belief that arbitration is inherently inferior to the courts for the adjudication of Ralph Act and Bane Act claims. In accordance with this dim view of arbitration, the Legislature placed special restrictions on waivers of judicial forums and procedures in connection with such claims. In practice, such restrictions discourage arbitration by invalidating otherwise valid arbitration agreements. It is precisely this sort of hostility to arbitration that the FAA prohibits.”
Similar to AB 3080, the “special restrictions” at issue in AB 2617 was that arbitration clauses could not be created as a condition of the contract. The court in Saheli deemed such restrictions as preempted under FAA.
The decision in Saheli is consistent with a long history of cases on the issue of FAA preemption. To the extent that AB 3080 will undoubtedly be challenged as preempted under the FAA if passed and potentially invalidated, it will serve only to create additional litigation and not necessarily benefit employees as intended.
The CalChamber is asking members to contact their senators to urge them to oppose AB 3080.
A message from our CEO, Nancy Lindholm:
Things are looking pretty nice at the Oxnard Chamber office. After 13 years in our location on Esplanade Drive in the Topa Financial Plaza, we've updated our look with new paint and carpet. While it's been a bit hectic going through the process, the end result will be a welcoming place for members and guests.
Considering we are tucked up on the third floor of a low-rise building in the center, we get an amazing number of visitors every month. Between our committee meetings, the Board of Directors, SCORE counselors, members utilizing our conference rooms, and people inquiring about various services, we log close to 150 visits per month.
We are happy to greet all those visitors with new carpet and fresh paint!
We will also have a new face greeting our visitors. Michael Lee is the new Operations Manager for the Oxnard Chamber. Michael come to us with an extensive background database management, special events management, and excellent customer service skills. Michael is a native of North Dakota and is looking forward to his first California "winter." Please help us welcome Michael when you are in the Chamber office or at an event.
Tom Carrese joined the Chamber team on June 1 and has jumped in with both feet. Tom is our new Business Development Manager. The number of new members we had last month more than doubled from our average prior to his arrival. Not only does Tom recruit new members, but he works with all members on helping them increase their exposure in the community.
I would like to very much thank our veteran team members, Sharen Strong and Janet Pozos, for taking on extra work while we filled our staff openings. Not only did they cover a vacant position, they got to do most of the packing and unpacking for the paint and carpet project! They are the best!!
If you're in the neighborhood, please stop by to see our new look and meet our new team members!
California is home to nearly two million residents who choose to work for themselves. As pillars of the workforce, these independent contractors are part of virtually every industry in the state including child care, healthcare, insurance, financial services, construction, technology and transportation.
A recent California Supreme Court ruling, however, has called into question the ability of these independent contractors to continue to work for themselves in their chosen professions. The practical consideration is whether a business and its associated workers have an employee-to-employer relationship or not. In such a relationship, the state regulates working conditions; independent contractors determine for themselves when and how they perform their jobs.
OpinionBecause of the potential disruption, the business community is asking the Legislature to immediately limit the court’s ruling to the workers directly involved in the Dynamex case and not have the decision apply to other contractors for the next two years.
The Dynamex decision created a new test that assumes workers are employees. This occurred because the company changed its workers’ status from employees to independent contractors without a significant change in circumstances. The workers sued to regain their status as employees, and the court agreed. But what may have been an appropriate outcome for Dynamex employees has much broader implications for many different types of independent contractors and self-employed professionals, and jeopardizes the businesses that rely on their services. This includes on-demand services such as transportation, child care and health care, as well as music instructors, insurance agents and physicians.
Although the justices may have had all the necessary facts to make an appropriate decision in the Dynamex situation, they could not consider all the other workers, businesses and consumers who rely on the independent contractor business model. The appropriate role of the Legislature is to determine the broad-based rule beyond what was decided by the court.
It is important to note that the court based its ruling on a government regulation that was last reviewed before invention of the smart phone. The Industrial Welfare Commission, which was established in 1913 to regulate hours, wages and working conditions, created the rule. But it has not been funded since the Gray Davis administration and the commission could never have imagined an on-demand economy powered by mobile devices. It seems obvious that it is time for the state to fund and reconvene the commission to update this obsolete regulation.
With all that is at risk for workers and our economy, the Legislature should act quickly.