What are the opening hours?

Monday 9am - 5pm Tuesday 9am - 5pm Wednesday 9am - 5pm Thursday 9am - 5pm Friday 9am - 5pm

The Parkman Law Firm

Home
United States
San Diego, CA
The Parkman Law Firm

Call Directions Website Contact the practice

We provide a free initial consultation of your legal matter.

Our firm can assist you with civil litigation, construction law (mechanics liens, stop notices, payment bonds, Miller Act claims, extra work), business law (Corps & LLC), wills and trusts.

10/16/2026

California Employers: New Workplace Laws Are Coming in 2027

Governor Gavin Newsom has signed several new California laws that will affect how employers manage their workforce, use workplace technology, and comply with employment regulations.

Key changes include:

AI and workplace surveillance: New restrictions on automated employment decisions, AI-enabled surveillance, and monitoring in workplace bathrooms.

Employee training: Required s*xual harassment prevention training will expand to include anti-hate speech guidance beginning in 2028.

Leave policies: Bereavement leave will expand to include a designated person who has a family-like relationship with the employee.

Stay-or-pay agreements: New rules and exceptions will affect employee repayment agreements, with the updated prohibition applying to covered contracts entered into on or after January 1, 2027.

Pay data reporting: Increased penalties will apply to employers that repeatedly fail to submit required reports.

Workplace protections: Additional laws address immigration-related retaliation, s*x discrimination, workplace violence restraining orders, and arbitration agreements.

Most of these laws take effect January 1, 2027, while certain provisions have different effective dates. Employers should review their employee handbooks, training programs, workplace technology practices, arbitration agreements, and repayment policies to identify necessary updates and prepare for compliance.

10/14/2026

California employers: Proposed changes to workplace first-aid requirements could mean new compliance obligations.

Cal/OSHA has proposed revisions to California’s emergency medical services and first-aid regulations for general industry and construction employers. If adopted, the changes could require employers to:

Review and update first-aid kit contents to meet proposed standards.

Assess workplace hazards and provide specialized supplies when needed.

Ensure first-aid kits are accessible and communicate their locations to employees.

Update first-aid guides and review chemical injury response procedures.

Reassess emergency response plans and first-aid programs.

Although the proposal has not been finalized, employers should monitor the rulemaking and begin evaluating their current first-aid programs to prepare for potential changes.

Proactive compliance starts with preparation. The Parkman Law Firm helps employers navigate workplace safety requirements and manage legal risk. Contact us to discuss how regulatory developments may affect your business.

09/30/2026

Not getting paid by a federal prime contractor? Act quickly.

When a federal subcontractor is facing nonpayment, the right response depends on the contract, the type of federal project, whether the prime has been paid, and whether a payment bond applies.

Subcontractors should consider:

• Reviewing the subcontract, payment terms, notice provisions, and applicable FAR flow-downs
• Determining whether the prime has already received payment from the government
• Putting the payment claim in writing and documenting the amounts owed
• Determining whether a Miller Act payment bond applies to a federal construction project
• Reviewing applicable federal prompt-payment protections
• Preserving invoices, contracts, correspondence, payment records, and evidence of work performed
• Considering whether to notify the contracting officer
• Protecting statutory deadlines before continuing negotiations with the prime

For federal construction projects, Miller Act deadlines can be particularly important. Waiting to address a payment dispute can jeopardize otherwise available remedies.

Federal subcontractor payment disputes are highly fact-specific. Before stopping work, sending a demand, or allowing a claim to sit unresolved, review the applicable contracts and deadlines carefully.

09/18/2026

When employees leave for competitors, the risks can extend well beyond losing talent.

Littler’s 2026 Employer Survey found that 92% of employers reported employees leaving for competitors in the past year. Among those employers, 55% reported a restrictive covenant or confidential information violation associated with the departure.

The most commonly reported concerns included:

• Employees copying, downloading, or removing confidential information
• Violations of contractual non-solicitation obligations
• Violations of non-compete agreements
• Misuse or disclosure of confidential information

Employers can take proactive steps to reduce these risks, including:

• Reviewing employment agreements to ensure confidentiality, non-solicitation, and other protective provisions are current and enforceable
• Monitoring for warning signs, such as unusual access to sensitive information or large data transfers
• Strengthening retention strategies through compensation, incentives, and workplace culture
• Creating a response plan involving legal, HR, IT, and communications teams before a coordinated departure occurs

With employee mobility and technology continuing to evolve, protecting proprietary information requires more than reacting after an employee leaves. Employers should regularly review their agreements, policies, and internal processes to identify potential vulnerabilities.

For assistance reviewing employment agreements or developing strategies to protect confidential business information, contact The Parkman Law Firm.

09/07/2026

Happy Labor Day from The Parkman Law Firm!

08/29/2026

Construction projects carry significant risks, from personal injury and property damage to construction defects and costly disputes. The right contract and insurance provisions can help allocate those risks before a claim arises.

Key risk-management tools include:

• Contractual indemnity: Allocates responsibility for losses, damages, and defense costs arising from a party’s work or conduct. The scope of indemnity matters, particularly because state anti-indemnity laws may limit what can be transferred.

• Prevailing-party attorneys’ fees: Can allow the prevailing party to recover attorneys’ fees and litigation or arbitration costs, but parties should consider whether available insurance will actually cover those amounts.

• Insurance requirements: Construction agreements should clearly identify required coverage, including general liability, builder’s risk, professional liability, bonds, and other project-specific coverage.

• Additional insured coverage: Simply requiring insurance may not be enough. Contracts should specify the required additional insured coverage and whether it extends to ongoing and completed operations.

• Deductibles and self-insured retentions: Contracts should address who is responsible for satisfying these amounts when a loss occurs, particularly in projects using wrap-up insurance programs.

• Early ADR: Mandatory meet-and-confer and mediation provisions can provide an opportunity to resolve disputes before litigation or arbitration increases costs and disrupts the project.

Effective risk transfer requires more than inserting standard provisions into a construction contract. The contractual allocation of risk should be carefully drafted and coordinated with the insurance coverage actually available.

Need help managing risk on a construction project? Contact The Parkman Law Firm to discuss your construction contracts, risk-allocation provisions, and dispute-avoidance strategies.

08/22/2026

A recent California Court of Appeal decision provides an important reminder for employers facing PAGA claims: the statutory maximum is not necessarily the final number.

In Taduran v. Glidewell, the Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed a significant reduction in both PAGA penalties and attorneys’ fees. The plaintiff sought approximately $55.9 million in civil penalties, but the trial court awarded approximately $516,000, an amount representing less than 1% of the requested penalties. The Court of Appeal affirmed.

The decision confirms that, under Labor Code section 2699(e)(2), trial courts have broad discretion to award a “lesser amount” of PAGA penalties when the maximum statutory penalties would be disproportionate. Courts are not required to use a particular formula and may consider factors including:

• The nature and technicality of the violations
• The actual harm suffered by employees
• The amount of unpaid wages involved
• The employer’s good-faith efforts to comply
• Prompt remediation and corrective action
• The proportionality of the requested penalties to the underlying violations

The court also upheld a substantial reduction in attorneys’ fees, emphasizing the relative simplicity of the claims, the limited recovery compared to the amount sought, and other factors supporting a reduced fee multiplier.

For employers, Taduran underscores why the response to a PAGA notice matters. Promptly investigating allegations, correcting identified issues, documenting compliance efforts, and evaluating available cure or other protections under the 2024 PAGA reforms may not only address ongoing violations, but may also become important evidence when challenging disproportionate penalties later in the litigation.

The practical takeaway: PAGA exposure is not necessarily determined by multiplying the maximum statutory penalty by the number of employees and pay periods. Employers’ compliance efforts, remediation, and the actual circumstances surrounding the violations can matter significantly.

08/17/2026

California employers should think carefully before taking employment action based on an employee’s arrest or other criminal justice records, even when the employee works outside California.

In Saberin v. Alation, Inc., the California Court of Appeal considered whether Labor Code section 432.7, California’s “no-arrest-record” statute, applied to an employee who lived and worked in Utah.

The employee was arrested in Florida while on vacation. After the employer learned of the arrest, it terminated his employment based on the arrest and his dishonesty about his absence. Although the employer was headquartered in California, the termination decision was made by employees in Illinois, with input from an employee in California.

The Court of Appeal ultimately upheld the arbitration award in the employer’s favor, finding that the connection between the alleged unlawful conduct and California was too tenuous under the circumstances.

But the decision offers an important caution for employers:

• California law may apply to employment decisions involving employees who work outside California.
• Courts will look at the specific facts and the connection between the conduct at issue and California, rather than relying solely on where the employee lives or works.
• The location and role of the individuals involved in an employment decision can matter.
• Arrest records and other criminal justice information can implicate California protections, including restrictions concerning arrests, diversion programs, and other protected records.

With remote work and multistate workforces now commonplace, employers should carefully evaluate which state’s employment laws may apply before relying on criminal justice information in making an employment decision.

08/07/2026

When Is Commute Time Compensable Under the FLSA?

Two recent U.S. Department of Labor opinion letters provide new guidance on when travel time for non-exempt employees must be paid, particularly in hybrid and field-service settings.

The key distinction? Who controls the travel and what happens immediately before and after it.

The DOL concluded that:

• Employee-chosen mid-day commuting generally is not compensable. If an employee voluntarily splits the workday between home and the office to avoid traffic or accommodate personal circumstances, the commute can remain an ordinary, non-compensable commute, even though it occurs during the workday.

• Employer-directed travel may be compensable. Travel can become compensable when the employer controls the timing and manner of the travel and requires the employee to perform substantial work immediately before and after the commute.

• The same analysis can produce different results. The DOL applied the same primary-beneficiary framework to both scenarios, but the level of employee choice and employer-directed work surrounding the travel changed the outcome.

This guidance may be particularly relevant for employers with hybrid employees, field service workers, traveling employees, or take-home work policies.

Employers should also keep in mind that state law may impose stricter requirements than the FLSA when it comes to compensable travel time.

Understanding when a commute becomes compensable can help employers structure flexible work arrangements while reducing wage-and-hour risk.

07/31/2026

Cal/OSHA is moving closer to adopting its proposed “worker walkaround rule.”

On July 1, 2026, the agency released revised proposed regulations and opened a limited 15-day public comment period before signaling its intent to continue moving the rulemaking process forward.

The proposed rule would expand who may accompany Cal/OSHA inspectors during workplace inspections. While the latest revisions make only minor wording changes, they do not address many of the concerns previously raised by employers and business groups.

Among the issues that remain unresolved are:

• How third-party representatives would be selected, particularly in non-union workplaces.
• The lack of a clear process to challenge an inspector's decision regarding who may accompany an inspection.
• Questions surrounding confidentiality, trade secret protection, security protocols, and compliance with PPE requirements.
• The potential for representatives to engage in activities unrelated to the inspection itself.

Although the recent modifications are limited, Cal/OSHA's actions indicate that it intends to continue advancing the proposal on an accelerated timeline. If adopted, the rule could significantly affect how workplace inspections are conducted throughout California.

Employers should continue monitoring developments and review their inspection protocols to ensure they are prepared for potential changes.

Address

9845 Erma Road
San Diego, CA
92129

Opening Hours

Monday	9am - 5pm
Tuesday	9am - 5pm
Wednesday	9am - 5pm
Thursday	9am - 5pm
Friday	9am - 5pm

Telephone

+18584535033

Website

http://bit.ly/parkmanfirm

Alerts

Be the first to know and let us send you an email when The Parkman Law Firm posts news and promotions. Your email address will not be used for any other purpose, and you can unsubscribe at any time.

Contact The Practice

Send a message to The Parkman Law Firm:

Want your practice to be the top-listed law practice in San Diego?