Monumental Win in Data Breach Class Action: A Case Study — The Consumer Finance Podcast
Ad Law Tool Kit Show – Episode 6 – Mitigating Class Action Exposure
Mass Torts vs. Class Actions: A Tale of Two Strategies
Fierce Competition Podcast | Letter From London: The Rise of UK Class Actions and the Competition Appeal Tribunal
JONES DAY TALKS®: Collective Actions in Spain: A Look Around and the View Ahead
Entertainment Law Update Episode 160 – August/September 2023
JONES DAY TALKS®: Class Actions Worldview Guide: Part 1–The United States and European Union
Eleventh Circuit Grants en banc Review to Resolve Controversial TCPA Standing Ruling
2022 Year in Review and Look Ahead Crossover With FCRA Focus - The Consumer Finance Podcast
2022 Year in Review and Look Ahead Crossover With The Consumer Finance Podcast - FCRA Focus
Fifth Circuit Affirms District Court’s Striking of Class Allegations
Podcast: California Employment News - The Basics of Wage Statement Compliance (Part 1)
California Employment News: The Basics of Wage Statement Compliance (Part 1)
What Is Mass Arbitration and How Should Companies Protect Themselves? - The Consumer Finance Podcast
Webinar Recording – Assessing the Surge in Wiretap Litigation
Fashion Counsel: Privacy in the Retail Fashion Industry
Recent Trends in Class-Action Consumer Finance Litigation - The Consumer Finance Podcast
#WorkforceWednesday: SCOTUS Rules on PAGA, Fifth Circuit Rules on COVID-19 Under WARN, Illinois Expands Bereavement Leave - Employment Law This Week®
ESG and SEC Enforcement: Securities & Exchange Commission v. Vale S.A and its Corporate Takeaways
Current Trends in FCRA Litigation - The Consumer Finance Podcast
Wage and hour class actions continue to plague employers throughout the United States. Such claims and individual suits are always fertile ground for plaintiffs’ lawyers; however, employers of all sizes in the real estate...more
This 14th edition of Unprecedented, our weekly update on COVID-19-related litigation, showcases new and evolving trends. Employers are facing claims for both doing too much and too little in response to the COVID-19 pandemic....more
Part 2: New Employment-Related Court Decisions Impacting California’s Public and Private Entities - California and federal courts handed down a number of labor and employment-related decisions last year, impacting...more
A California court has held that employees required to call their employers before a shift to determine whether they are assigned to work may be entitled to reporting time pay on days when they are not actually put to work....more
On February 4, 2019, a divided panel of the California Court of Appeal held in Ward v. Tilly’s, Inc., No. B280151, that employees scheduled for “on-call” or “call-in” shifts may be entitled to reporting time pay, even when...more
Pier 1 Import has agreed to pay $3.5 million to settle a class action lawsuit brought on behalf of about 9,300 retail store associates in California. The lawsuit alleged the company owed workers pay for when they are...more
May's key California employment law cases involve “on call” meal and rest periods, and employees working seven days a week. ...more
On Dec. 22, 2016, the California Supreme Court ruled in Augustus, et al. v. ABM Security Services, Inc. that an employer’s policy requiring employees to remain “on call” during paid rest breaks violated state law. This...more
$90 Million Judgment Reinstated: Employers Must Relieve Employees Of All Duties During Their Rest Periods - Augustus v. ABM Sec. Servs., Inc., 2016 WL 7407328 (Cal. S. Ct. 2016) - Jennifer Augustus filed this...more
This alert covers selected new California laws that may affect your company’s business operations in California, and recent published case opinions that may impact your company if it does business or is involved in litigation...more
Augustus v. ABM Security Services, Inc. On December 22, 2016, the California Supreme Court in Augustus v. ABM Security Services, Inc., ruled that California law prohibits on-duty and on-call rest periods. You may...more
On December 22, 2016, the California Supreme Court issued a critical decision in Augustus v. ABM Security Services, Inc., 2016 D.J. 12608 (2016), relating to California’s rest period obligations. The California Supreme Court...more
In Jennifer Augustus v. ABM Security Services, Inc., the California Supreme Court determined that employers are prohibited from implementing “on-call” rest breaks. This holding led the Supreme Court to reinstate an...more
After a years-long battle, the California Supreme Court finally issued a ruling defining what it means for an employer to provide a rest break to non-exempt employees under California law: rest breaks cannot be “on-duty” or...more
A class of security guards received an early holiday present from the California Supreme Court on December 22. The Court ruled that California law requires employees on rest breaks be relieved of all duties. It...more
Seyfarth Synopsis: In what many employers will see as a “break” from workplace reality, the Supreme Court, in Augustus v. ABM Security Services, Inc., announced that certain “on call” rest periods do not comply with the...more
$90 Million Judgment Reinstated: Employers Must Relieve Employees Of All Duties During Their Break Time - This week, the California Supreme Court ruled that California law strictly prohibits on-duty rest periods. “What...more
Gig economy companies based on an independent contractor model beware. On December 14, 2016, a federal court in Pennsylvania denied a motion to dismiss an “on-call” wage claim in a class action lawsuit filed against Uber by...more
As we previously reported, “predictive scheduling” is one of the most closely watched issues by retailers today. In April 2015, New York State Attorney General Eric T. Schneiderman garnered national news headlines when he...more
California Updates Data Security Laws - Why it matters: The first state to enact data breach notification legislation, California has now updated Civil Code Section 1798.82 with three new bills signed into law by...more
Actual Knowledge by Employer Not Necessary for Title VII Religious Discrimination Claim, U.S. Supreme Court Rules - Why it matters: In a closely watched case, the U.S. Supreme Court sided with a teenage applicant to...more
On Premises, On-Call Time Compensable; Sleep Time Not Excluded - Emphasizing that California law provides greater protections than federal law to on-call employees, the California Supreme Court in Mendiola v. CPS...more
On December 31, 2014, the California Supreme Court held in Mendiola v. CPS Security Solutions, Inc. (Case No. S212704) that security guards who work shifts of 24 or more hours under Wage Order 4 must be compensated for their...more
In Augustus v. ABM Security Services, Inc. (Nos. B243788 & B247392, filed 12/31/14), the California Court of Appeal for the Second Appellate District held Labor Code section 226.7 prescribes only that an employee may not be...more
On January 8, 2015, the California Supreme Court issued a decision holding that the on-call hours for security guards who work 24-hour shifts constituted compensable hours worked. Further, the court ruled that the guards’...more