Consumer Finance Monitor Podcast Episode: The Cantero Opinion: The Supreme Court Leaves National Bank Preemption in Limbo
In That Case: Cantero v. Bank of America
SCOTUS applies the "discovery rule" in timely copyright infringement claim; Cher wins in Marital Settlement Agreement vs Copyright Grant Termination Notices; Student Athletes Win Revenue Share and NIL
Consumer Finance Monitor Podcast Episode: The U.S. Supreme Court’s Pending Ruling on National Bank Preemption: A Discussion of Cantero v. Bank of America, N.A.
U.S. District Court Addresses Federal Preemption for State Credit Reporting Laws
State Laws on Screening and Federal Preemption – Where Are We Now and Where Are We Heading? — FCRA Focus Podcast
Consumer Finance Monitor Podcast Episode: What the Recent Developments in Federal Preemption for National and State Banks Mean for Bank and Nonbank Consumer Financial Services Providers
The Presumption of Innocence Podcast: Episode 24 - Special Edition: Spotlight on the Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers of New Jersey
Law School Toolbox Podcast Episode 386: Listen and Learn -- Federal and State Powers (Con Law)
[Podcast] Cellular Agriculture and the Evolving Legal/Regulatory Landscape: A Conversation with Ahmed Khan
Keeping Up With the Bureau Episode 2: FCRA Preemption Issues, Infringing State Laws, and the CFPB's Position
#WorkforceWednesday: SCOTUS Rules on PAGA, Fifth Circuit Rules on COVID-19 Under WARN, Illinois Expands Bereavement Leave - Employment Law This Week®
California Employment News: US Supreme Court “Viking River” Decision Brings PAGA Relief for CA Employers
AGG Talks: Background Screening - What is FCRA Preemption, and Why Should You Care?
Law of the Land? Cannabis, Preemption, and SCOTUS [More with McGlinchey Ep. 37]
Bar Exam Toolbox Podcast Episode 162: Listen and Learn -- Federal and State Powers (Con Law)
#WorkforceWednesday: SCOTUS in Review, Biden Acts to Limit Non-Competes, NY HERO Act Model Safety Plans - Employment Law This Week®
Case In Point: Recent Developments in Employment Law
Employment Law Now V-96- LOTS of Big Employment Law Developments
Nota Bene Episode 101: Catching up with Global Climate Regulation with Nico van Aelstyn
In a significant win for California employers, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, in Chamber of Commerce v. Bonta,1 affirmed a district court injunction striking down California Assembly Bill 51 (“AB 51”) as preempted by the...more
Summary - Where an employer can and does track the exact time in minutes that its employees work each shift, and those records show that employees were not paid for all the time they worked, neutral time rounding is not a...more
On September 15, 2021, in a 2-1 decision, the Ninth Circuit upheld most of California’s law banning mandatory arbitration agreements and prohibiting employers from retaliating against applicants who refuse to sign an...more
In a 2-1 decision, the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on September 15 reversed a district court’s order enjoining the enforcement of California Assembly Bill 51 (AB 51) codified as Labor Code Section 432.6. Chamber...more
Shirvanyan v. Los Angeles Community. College District, No. B296593, 2020 WL 7706321 (Cal. Ct. App. Nov. 30, 2020) - The availability of a reasonable accommodation is an element of a claim under the Fair Employment and...more
On October 10, 2019, California Governor Gavin Newsom signed into law California Assembly Bill 51 (“AB 51”), which prohibits California employers from requiring prospective and current employees to “waive any right, forum, or...more
Ridgeway v. Wal-Mart, Inc., 946 F.3d 1066 (9th Cir. 2020) - The employer must pay minimum wages to employees for time spent on mandated layovers where the employer’s policy imposes constraints on employees’ movements...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
California AB 51’s ban on mandatory employment arbitration remains stayed for now. AB 51 was passed in fall 2019 and essentially prohibits employers from requiring an applicant or employee to consent to mandatory arbitration...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
A federal judge issued a temporary restraining order on Monday, December 30, to halt enforcement of California’s Assembly Bill 51 (AB 51), which was scheduled to go into effect on January 1, 2020. AB 51 would have prevented...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
As discussed in our prior article, California recently enacted Assembly Bill (AB) 51, a law that attempts to ban certain mandatory employment arbitration agreements in the state. Specifically, this new law purports to bar...more
Yesterday, a federal judge from the Eastern District of California granted a temporary restraining order preventing California from enforcing Assembly Bill (AB) 51. ...more
If your business operates in California, you need to be aware of AB 51, a law that will take effect January 1, 2020. AB 51 precludes employers from requiring any applicant or employee, as a condition of employment, continued...more
Seyfarth Synopsis. As of January 1, 2020, 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. But will AB 51 withstand...more
As expected, California’s effort to ban employers from requiring employees and applicants to sign an arbitration agreement has been challenged in federal court. The lawsuit was filed by a business coalition that includes the...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
California recently enacted Assembly Bill (AB) 51, a law that attempts to ban certain mandatory employment arbitration agreements in the state. But what is the practical impact of AB 51 in light of its possible preemption by...more
On October 10, 2019, Governor Newsom signed Assembly Bill 51 (AB 51) into law. This important legislation is aimed at reversing a series of cases that allow employers to unilaterally impose pre-dispute arbitration agreements...more
California is set to become the only state to outlaw predispute mandatory arbitration of statutory employment claims. On October 10, 2019, Governor Gavin Newsom signed California Assembly Bill (AB) 51, which prohibits...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
On October 10, 2019, Governor Newsom signed AB 51 and AB 9 into law. These two worker-friendly laws may require employers to review and revise current policies and procedures relating to employment-related claims....more