Jessica Perry

Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP

+ Follow Contact

Latest Posts › Class Action

Share:

Are Franchisees Employees? California Court Says No

In October 2017, four franchisees filed a federal complaint against the global convenience store chain, 7-Eleven, seeking to represent a purported class of over 1,000 similarly situated 7-Eleven franchisees in California. The...more

3/28/2018 / 7-Eleven , Class Action , Corporate Counsel , Employer Liability Issues , Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) , Franchisee , Franchises , Independent Contractors , Misclassification , Popular , Wage and Hour

California Legislature Tries Again to Thwart Arbitration With Bill Purporting to Make Mandatory Arbitration Unlawful

California employers should keep an eye on a new challenge to arbitration provisions on its way to the Governor’s desk. On August 24, 2015, the California Senate passed AB 465, which would make it unlawful for any employer or...more

8/31/2015 / Arbitration , AT&T Mobility , AT&T Mobility v Concepcion , Class Action , Class Action Arbitration Waivers , Employment Policies , Labor Code , Preemption

Supreme Court Votes Pro-Arbitration Once Again and Upholds Class Arbitration Waiver

Lest there be any lingering confusion, the U.S. Supreme Court has once again reminded us that arbitration agreements are to be “rigorously enforced.”...more

6/26/2013 / American Express , American Express v Italian Colors Restaurant , Arbitration , Arbitration Agreements , Class Action , Class Action Arbitration Waivers , Federal Arbitration Act , Pay-For-Delay , SCOTUS

Supreme Court Eliminates Jurisdictional Escape Hatch To The Class Action Fairness Act

The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Standard Fire Insurance Co. v. Knowles confirms that a plaintiff cannot avoid federal jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act (“CAFA”) by stipulating that the class will seek less...more

3/27/2013 / Amount in Controversy , CAFA , Class Action , Class Certification , Damages , Jurisdiction , SCOTUS

Second Circuit Holds No Substantive Right To Bring A Pattern-Or-Practice Title VII Claim

Reversing a denial of a motion to compel arbitration in Parisi et al. v. Goldman, Sachs & Co. et al., the Second Circuit held that a plaintiff does not have a substantive right to bring a pattern and practice claim under...more

3/27/2013 / Arbitration , Arbitration Agreements , Class Action , Discrimination , Gender Discrimination , Goldman Sachs , Pattern or Practice , Title VII

5 Results

View per page

Page: of 1