Hispanic Heritage Month is a celebration from September 15 to October 15 that honors Hispanic culture and the people who have made a difference. Below are five Hispanic leaders who dedicated their lives to lifting up workers. Cesar Chavez Born in Arizona in 1927 to a Mexican-American family, Cesar Chavez co-founded the United Farm Workers…

Source

Oktoberfest is here and will continue until October 5. The celebration is a delicious festival of beer, pretzels, bratwurst, and more. Make your Oktoberfest a union-made one with our exclusive shopping list above. Each purchase goes to support good union jobs! Happy Oktoberfest from all of us at Labor 411 Seasonal Biers Goose Island Oktoberfest…

Source

George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Ben Franklin, and . . . Charlie Kirk? Money in the US might see a new face if the GOP has its way. Yahoo News reports: “A pair of House Republicans are pushing to have Charlie Kirk memorialized on U.S. currency in the wake of his assassination earlier this month. Republican Study Committee…

Source

California Governor Gavin Newsom’s appearance this week on the Late Show with Stephen Colbert is going viral. He specifically warned against Trump’s efforts “trying to rig the [2026] midterm elections.” Newsom said that “I fear that we will not have election in 2028 . . . unless we wake up to the Code Red that’s…

Source

The most famous and divisive suspension in recent memory is over. NBC News reports: “Jimmy Kimmel’s late-night show will return to ABC’s airwaves on Tuesday, nearly a week after it was suspended amid criticism of the host’s remarks about the assassination of conservative activist Charlie Kirk. ‘Last Wednesday, we made the decision to suspend production on the…

Source

Christianity on Display Like Never Before

In a world that often feels fractured by division, rage, and retribution, moments of profound grace have the power to pierce through the noise and remind us of something eternal. Yesterday, September 21, 2025, at State Farm Stadium in Glendale, Arizona, we witnessed just that—a celebration of life for Charlie Kirk that wasn’t merely a memorial, but a radiant showcase of Christian forgiveness, love, and revival. Titled “Building a Legacy: Remembering Charlie Kirk,” the event drew tens of thousands, overflowing into adjacent arenas, with high-profile figures like President Donald Trump and Vice President JD Vance joining everyday believers in honoring the slain conservative activist. But at its heart, this gathering transcended politics; it was Christianity laid bare, raw and unapologetic, starting with one woman’s extraordinary act of mercy.

The Unthinkable Act of Forgiveness

It began with Erika Kirk, Charlie’s 36-year-old widow and mother of their two young children. Just 11 days after the unthinkable—Charlie’s assassination on September 10 during a “Prove Me Wrong” debate at Utah Valley University in Orem, Utah—she stepped onto the stage amid waves of applause and shared a story that left the stadium in stunned silence, then erupting in tears and cheers. Charlie, 31, had been shot in the neck by 22-year-old Tyler Robinson, a suspect now facing charges of aggravated murder and held without bail. Erika, who rushed from her mother’s hospital room in Phoenix to view her husband’s body, described the agony of that moment: his face bearing a “knowing, Mona Lisa-like half-smile,” as if he already glimpsed eternity.

But then came the words that will echo through history: “I forgive him. I forgive him because it was what Christ did, and what Charlie would do.” Drawing from Luke 23:34—”Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do”—Erika explained that Charlie’s life’s work was to reach young men like Robinson, those lost in anger or ideology, offering them a path to redemption. “He wanted to save young men, just like the one who took his life,” she said through sobs, her voice steady with divine resolve. She even opposed the death penalty for her husband’s killer, choosing compassion over vengeance, a stance that has sparked national conversations on justice and mercy.

In that instant, Erika embodied the radical forgiveness Jesus modeled on the cross—not a dismissal of sin, but a refusal to let hatred consume her soul. As one attendee reflected on X, “Erica Kirk publicly forgave Charlie’s killer, demonstrating a powerful act of grace so that everyone Charlie sought to reach on campus would know they, too, can find forgiveness and turn away from evil.” Another wrote, “It was the most amazing Christian service I’ve ever seen, filled with love and compassion and forgiveness. The speech from Erica Kirk was especially moving. Lots of tears were shed, mine included.” Her words weren’t weakness; they were a weapon against the darkness that claimed Charlie, turning tragedy into testimony. We are all Charlie

President Trump said Wednesday that billionaire George Soros and his son should be charged under racketeering law for allegedly “supporting violent Protests, and much more.” “George Soros, and his wonderful Radical Left son, should be charged with RICO because of their support of Violent Protests, and much more, all throughout the United States of America,” Trump said in a post on his Truth Social platform. “We’re not going to allow these lunatics to rip apart America any more, never giving it so much as a chance to ‘BREATHE,’ and be FREE. Soros, and his group of psychopaths, have caused great damage to our Country! That includes his Crazy, West Coast friends. Be careful, we’re watching you! Thank you for your attention to this matter!” the president added. Federal RICO law, an acronym for Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization, is aimed at organized criminal activity and can be used to address a variety of crimes. The president did not provide any evidence against Soros or his son, nor did he cite specific incidents. Trump did not specify in his post which son of Soros’s he was talking about. According to a New York Times report from June, there are five Soros children and four sons. Trump says he wants to remove attorney who resisted prosecuting Letitia James One of the sons, Alex Soros, is the chair of Open Society Foundations, which his father founded. The younger Soros is also married to Huma Abedin, a longtime aide of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. The elder Soros has long been a target of the right, with Rep. Nancy Mace (R-S.C.) recently claiming he has funded groups involved in pro-Palestinian protests on college campuses. What Trump is talking about here is trying to apply RICO law (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) against George Soros and (presumably) Alex Soros for allegedly supporting or funding protests. Let’s break down how that would actually work in legal terms:

---

1. What RICO Requires

For a RICO case, prosecutors must show:

• An “enterprise” — a group or organization functioning together for a common purpose.
• A pattern of racketeering activity — at least two qualifying criminal acts (fraud, bribery, extortion, terrorism, drug trafficking, etc.) within 10 years.
• Connection between the acts and the enterprise — showing the crimes furthered the enterprise’s goals.
• Participation/knowledge — the accused knowingly joined or directed the scheme.

Simply supporting protests is not enough. Protests are protected under the First Amendment unless tied to specific crimes (e.g., funding arson, paying for violence).

---

2. Would Funding Protests Qualify?

• Legal support: Donating to organizations, bail funds, or activist groups is generally protected political speech. Courts have consistently ruled that money in politics/advocacy is speech unless it directly funds a crime.
• Criminal link: For RICO, the government would need evidence that Soros knowingly financed criminal acts (e.g., rioting, destruction of property) — not just protests.
• Predicate acts: RICO predicates include things like bribery, extortion, obstruction, fraud, but not ordinary political activity. Unless prosecutors tied the funding to specific criminal conspiracies, it wouldn’t fit.

---

3. Why Trump’s Claim is More Political Than Legal

• No cited evidence: Trump didn’t list any crimes or predicate acts committed by Soros or his foundations.
• First Amendment issues: Courts are very reluctant to treat political donations or activism as racketeering.
• Targeting philanthropies: Open Society Foundations fund civil society groups globally, often in controversial areas — but controversy ≠ criminal enterprise.
• High legal bar: Prosecutors would need clear proof that Soros directly ordered, funded, or coordinated criminal activity (like violence or fraud), not just advocacy.

---

4. Historical Use of RICO

RICO has been used against:

• Mafia and organized crime families
• Corrupt unions or corporations
• Street gangs or cartels
• Fraudulent business schemes

It has not been successfully used against philanthropists or political donors for their support of social causes.

---

Bottom line:
For Trump’s RICO suggestion to work, prosecutors would have to prove that Soros and his son were part of an ongoing criminal enterprise that committed multiple racketeering crimes. Mere support for protests — even disruptive ones — wouldn’t qualify under RICO. Unless there’s evidence of financing specific illegal acts, the idea is legally implausible and mainly a political statement.

---

United States of America v. George Soros, et al.

Count I — Racketeering Conspiracy (18 U.S.C. § 1962(d))

Defendants:
George Soros, Alex Soros, [Other Named Individuals]

---

1. The Enterprise

• The defendants and their co-conspirators constituted an “enterprise” within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 1961(4).
• The enterprise operated through various nonprofit organizations, activist groups, and shell entities, collectively referred to as the Front Network.
• Purpose: To finance and coordinate nationwide operations involving violent protests, intimidation campaigns, and political corruption.

---

2. Pattern of Racketeering Activity

The defendants engaged in a pattern of racketeering activity by committing, and conspiring to commit, the following predicate acts:

• Predicate Act 1: Arson
  On or about [Date], funds from Open Society Foundations were used to purchase materials that were used in firebombing a police precinct in [City].
• Predicate Act 2: Interstate Transportation in Aid of Rioting
  On or about [Date], defendants financed transportation of individuals across state lines to engage in violent riots in [City, State].
• Predicate Act 3: Money Laundering
  On or about [Date], defendants directed funds through shell nonprofits to conceal their use in financing criminal activity.
• Predicate Act 4: Extortion
  Between [Dates], the enterprise threatened corporate executives with orchestrated violent protests unless donations were made to affiliated organizations.

---

3. Overt Acts in Furtherance of the Conspiracy

• Emails and encrypted messages show defendants knew funds would be used to support violent and unlawful conduct.
• Meetings in [Cities] coordinated multi-state actions.
• Wire transfers totaling $X million were routed through offshore accounts to obscure the source of funds.

---

4. Legal Basis

By reason of the foregoing, defendants conspired to violate 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c) by conducting and participating in the affairs of the enterprise through a pattern of racketeering activity, including multiple acts of arson, extortion, money laundering, and obstruction of justice.

---

5. Relief Sought

• Forfeiture of assets traceable to the racketeering activity.
• Criminal penalties: up to 20 years imprisonment per count.
• Restitution to victims of property damage and violence.

---

Why This Would Be Hard in Real Life

• Prosecutors would need documented proof Soros knowingly funded criminal acts — not just protests or advocacy.
• The First Amendment would be the strongest defense: donations to causes and movements are political speech unless directly tied to crimes.
• Courts are skeptical of stretching RICO to cover controversial political activity.

---

California employers continue to face heavy scrutiny and litigation regarding their meal and rest break practices. Since the Brinker Restaurant Group v. Superior Court decision in 2012, courts have reaffirmed that compliance is measured by strict timing rules, not just having written policies in place. Here are five key reminders on the timing requirements and related obligations for meal and rest breaks in California:

1. Timing of Breaks

Meal Breaks
The Brinker decision makes it clear:

• First meal break must begin no later than the end of the fifth hour of work (for example, 4 hours and 59 minutes into the shift).
• Second meal break must begin no later than the end of the tenth hour of work.

Rest Breaks

• 10 minutes rest for shifts from 3.5 to 6 hours
• 20 minutes for shifts of more than 6 up to 10 hours
• 30 minutes for shifts of more than 10 up to 14 hours, and so on.

Rest breaks should generally fall near the middle of work periods “insofar as practicable.” Employers should only deviate from this principle after carefully analyzing operational needs and documenting the rationale.

2. Rules Regarding Waiver of Breaks

Meal Breaks

• Can generally only be waived if the shift is less than 6 hours (but employers need to be careful about permitting employees to waive breaks)
• However, as long as employers effectively allow an employee to take a full 30-minute meal break, the employee can voluntarily choose not to take the break and this would not result in a violation (but again, employers must be able to establish that the employee voluntarily waived their break, which can be difficult without the proper documentation). The Supreme Court explained in Brinker, “The employer that refuses to relinquish control over employees during an owed meal period violates the duty to provide the meal period and owes compensation [and premium pay] for hours worked. The employer that relinquishes control but nonetheless knows or has reason to know that the employee is performing work during the meal period, has not violated its meal period obligations [and owes no premium pay], but nonetheless owes regular compensation to its employees for time worked.”

Rest Breaks

• Employees may voluntarily skip rest breaks only if they were properly authorized and permitted to take them.
• Employers must not pressure or discourage employees from taking rest breaks.

3. Timekeeping Requirements

• Employers must record all meal periods taken.
• Employers are not required to record rest breaks, but must still ensure they are authorized and permitted.

4. Complaint Procedure for Missed Breaks

Even with compliant policies, employers can still be liable if they knew or should have known that employees were missing breaks.

• Have a clear and accessible reporting procedure for employees to notify the company if they could not take a meal or rest break.
• A documented, effective complaint process can be critical in defending against claims that breaks were not provided.

5. No Rounding Meal Periods

In Donohue v. AMN Services LLC, the California Supreme Court held:

• Time rounding is not allowed for meal periods.
• Meal period records must show actual, precise time taken.

Even small amounts of rounding could cut into the guaranteed 30 minutes. The Court also held that time records that show a missed, short, or late meal break create a rebuttable presumption of a meal period violation. The court explained that, “Employers can rebut the presumption by presenting evidence that employees were compensated for noncompliant meal period or that they had in fact been provided compliant meal periods during which they chose to work.”

Looking Ahead: AI-Powered Compliance Tools

The attorneys at Zaller Law Group are currently developing AI-powered compliance software designed to help employers track and enforce wage and hour compliance—with a special focus on meal and rest break rules.

This ties directly into Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA)’s 2024 reforms, which now reduce penalties for employers who can show they took “reasonable steps to comply” with the law:

• 15% of the applicable penalties if reasonable steps were taken before receiving a PAGA notice or request for employment records
• 30% of the applicable penalties if reasonable steps were taken within 60 days after receiving a PAGA notice

We are currently testing the software, but if you would like to join a waitlist to learn more when the software is available, submit your information here. 

The post Five Compliance Reminders on Meal and Rest Breaks to Protect Against Costly Claims appeared first on California Employment Law Report.

California regulations going into effect on October 1, 2025, make clear that employers’ use of artificial intelligence in personnel practices can lead to liability under state fair employment laws.

Partner Odia Kagan, Chair of the firm’s Data Privacy Compliance & International Privacy Practice Group, provides a breakdown in a post to the firm’s Privacy Compliance & Data Security Blog.

Here are two of her key takeaways:

• The regulations clarify that an employer’s use an automated-decision system or selection criteria that discriminates against applicants or employees on a basis protected by California law can give rise to employer liability. In short, AI engaging in unlawful discrimination may be attributed to the employer using the AI.

• Employers may run systems using AI through anti-bias testing or take similar proactive efforts to avoid unlawful discrimination claims or more effectively defend them.

To read Odia’s full post, click here: Employment Discrimination Using AI Is Still Discrimination

Odia also dives into California’s SB-7 in additional detail in this blog post: What California Employers Need to Know About the Use of High-Risk Automated Decision Systems