#WorkforceWednesday: SCOTUS Rules on PAGA, Fifth Circuit Rules on COVID-19 Under WARN, Illinois Expands Bereavement Leave - Employment Law This Week®
#WorkforceWednesday: EEOC COVID-19 Charges Surge, NYC’s Pay Transparency Law, SCOTUS Considers PAGA - Employment Law This Week®
Employment Law Now VI-114-Banning Arbitration of Sexual Harassment/Assault Claims
#WorkforceWednesday: Employee Travel and the Coronavirus, NLRB’s Joint-Employment Rule, and DoorDash’s 5,000+ Individual Arbitrations - Employment Law This Week®
III-41- Things That Make You Go “Hmmm” in Employment Law
Employment Law This Week®: Arbitration Agreement Enforcement, Maryland’s #MeToo Legislation, California’s National Origin Regulations
II-33- Hot Summer Trends: The Supreme Court on Class Action Waivers, and the Rise of Web Site Accessibility Lawsuits
II-27 - Our 1st Anniversary Special: Bringing Back Our Inaugural Guest to Discuss What Was and What Will Still Be With President Trump
II-25 – Top 10 New Year’s Resolutions for Employers in 2018
Employment Law This Week®: DOJ’s New Stance on Title VII, ACA Contraception Mandate, SCOTUS Hears Class-Action Waiver Arguments, RI’s Paid Sick Leave Policy
I-16 – Kneeling, Indefinite Leave, DC Updates, Non-Compete Consideration, and Pretty as a Protected Class
Employment Law This Week®: Class Action Waiver Cases, Rescission of Tip-Pooling Restrictions, Title VII & Sexual Orientation, Updated Form I-9
Employment Law This Week®: Federal Decision on Website Accessibility, Mandatory Class Action Waivers, Sexual Harassment Case Dismissed, Upcoming Employment Laws
Employment Law This Week: Class Action Waiver Split, Discriminatory Practices Suit, EEOC’s Claims Data, Highly Skilled Worker Rule
Employment Law This Week®: Retaliation Guidance, Class Action Waivers, “Persuader Rule” Injunction, “Cat’s Paw” Doctrine
Employment Law This Week: Constructive Discharge Claims, Class Waivers, Hiring Bias, Electronic Record-Keeping Rule, Equal Pay
Employment Law Issues for Health Care Employers
On May 10, 2024, the Ninth Circuit decided Yuriria Diaz v. Macy’s West Stores, after the employer appealed the district court’s decision ordering arbitration of both an employee’s individual and non-individual claims under...more
On February 12, 2024, the Ninth Circuit in Johnson v. Lowe’s Home Centers, LLC, 93 F.4th 459 (9th Cir. 2024) vacated a district court’s dismissal of a former employee’s nonindividual PAGA claims and remanded the nonindividual...more
Join us on September 26 for a comprehensive webinar hosted by CDF as we delve into the crucial subject of arbitrating PAGA claims, exploring its implications following the California Supreme Court's landmark decision in...more
In Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana, 213 L. Ed. 2d 179, 142 S. Ct. 1906 (2022), reh’g denied, No. 20-1573, 2022 WL 3580311 (U.S. Aug. 22, 2022), the Supreme Court held that the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. § 1 et...more
On June 15, 2022, the Supreme Court of the United States finally issued its long-awaited decision in Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana. The Court partially overturned Iskanian v. CLS Transportation Los Angeles, LLC...more
On June 15, 2022, the United States Supreme Court issued its much anticipated decision in Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana. The Supreme Court held that California’s rule invalidating pre-dispute agreements waiving the...more
California is complicated for employers — and a recent case, Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana, is just one more example. The Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (PAGA) authorized California employees to sue employers...more
Last year was a significant year for California’s Private Attorneys General Act (known as “PAGA”), the 18-year old wage-and-hour enforcement act that, according to one study, has generated over 20,000 lawsuits against...more
Seyfarth Synopsis: The California Supreme Court has held that, under the Private Attorneys General Act (“PAGA”), an employee does not lose the ability to pursue representative claims as an “aggrieved employee” by virtue of...more
Seyfarth Synopsis: Among other things, AB 51 makes it unlawful for employers to impose arbitration agreements on employees as a condition of employment, even if employees are permitted to opt out. AB 51 was quickly challenged...more
On February 7, 2020, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California issued an order supporting its injunction of Assembly Bill 51 (AB 51), an expansive anti-arbitration law enacted in October, which was...more
A California federal court has granted a preliminary injunction blocking enforcement of Assembly Bill 51, an expansive anti-arbitration law enacted in October and set to take effect on January 1, 2020....more
On December 30, 2019, a federal District Court issued a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) against the State of California temporarily enjoining the State from enforcing Assembly Bill 51 (AB 51) —the new California law...more
Seyfarth Synopsis: Set to take effect on January 1, 2020, AB 51 would make it unlawful for employers to impose arbitration agreements on employees as a condition of employment, even if employees are permitted to opt out. As...more
We previously highlighted Assembly Bill 51, which prohibits employers from requiring employees or applicants for employment to “waive any right, forum, or procedure for a violation” of the Fair Employment and Housing Act or...more
Often perceived – rightfully or not – as an overly employer-friendly forum, mandatory arbitration agreements between employers and employees have been the bane of the plaintiff’s bar’s existence for years. However, there has...more
On October 13, 2019, California Governor Gavin Newsom signed Assembly Bill (AB) 51 into law, banning most employment arbitration agreements in California starting January 1, 2020. This new law is expansive in scope but short...more
Seyfarth Synopsis. On Thursday, September 5, 2019, the Legislature passed AB 51. This bill would ban mandatory arbitration agreements with respect to claims under the Labor Code and the Fair Employment and Housing Act while...more
In a significant victory for California employers who use arbitration agreements, the California Supreme Court ruled (ZB, N.A. et al. v. Superior Court of San Diego County, S246711 (September 12, 2019)) that the recovery of...more
Yesterday September 12, 2019, the California Supreme Court held that private litigants may not recover unpaid wages under the Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act (“PAGA”). See ZB, N.A. v. Superior Court (Lawson) (Cal....more
In this episode of the Working Wise Podcast Series, K&L Gates Los Angeles Associate Saman Rejali provides an overview of tips and common mistakes to avoid for employers doing business in California....more
California Appellate Court Sides With Plaintiff in PAGA Suit - Why it matters - A plaintiff seeking civil penalties under the Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) for a violation of the Labor Code is not required to...more
Supreme Court to Decide Validity of Class Action Waivers - Why it matters - After multiple petitions, and amidst a broadening split of the federal appellate courts, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed earlier this month to...more
Introduction and Overview - Since the turn of the century, there has been a huge increase in the number of class action lawsuits alleging violations of California’s overtime laws or other Labor Code statutes and wage and...more
A California appellate court recently held in Garrido v. Air Liquide Industrial U.S. L.P that the rule set forth in Gentry v. Superior Court, 42 Cal.4th 443 (2007) remains valid so long as the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”)...more