Seyfarth Synopsis: Two appellate courts applying California law have rejected hypertechnical challenges to the adequacy of wage statements under Labor Code section 226. The decisions provide some clarity, remind us that the...more
Seyfarth Synopsis: The legal battles over Assembly Bill 51 (AB 51)—which attempts to prohibit mandatory employment arbitration agreements - continue. The Ninth Circuit heard the much anticipated oral arguments earlier this...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. 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
10/11/2019
/ Arbitration ,
Arbitration Agreements ,
Class Action ,
Class Action Arbitration Waivers ,
Contract Terms ,
Employment Contract ,
Federal Arbitration Act ,
FEHA ,
Freelance Workers ,
Independent Contractors ,
Labor Code ,
Labor Regulations ,
Legislative Agendas ,
Pending Legislation ,
Preemption ,
Supremacy Clause
Seyfarth Synopsis: The California Supreme Court has held that an individual may not seek unpaid wages under Labor Code section 558. Section 558 can be invoked only by the Labor Commissioner or by an individual suing under...more
9/20/2019
/ Appeals ,
Arbitration ,
Arbitration Agreements ,
CA Supreme Court ,
Employer Liability Issues ,
Employment Contract ,
Employment Litigation ,
Labor Code ,
Motion to Compel ,
Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) ,
Unpaid Wages ,
Wage and Hour
Seyfarth Synopsis: California employees who are denied adequate wage statements (“paystubs”) can sue for penalties. Paystub penalty plaintiffs generally must prove they suffered an “injury” caused by the employer’s “knowing...more
Seyfarth Synopsis: In Mendoza v. Nordstrom, Inc., the Supreme Court resolved three unsettled questions concerning how to read California’s “day of rest” statutes: Employees are entitled to one day of rest during each...more
Seyfarth Synopsis: In Lubin v. Wackenhut Corp., the California Court of Appeal reinstated an effort to certify a class of over 10,000 security officers required to sign on-duty meal period agreements. The Court of Appeal...more
On October 10, 2015, the Governor signed AB 1513, which, effective January 1, 2016, will add Section 226.2 to the Labor Code. Section 226.2 will make it even more difficult for California employers to pay employees on a...more
Representing what media observers call the nation’s most aggressive attempt yet to close the salary gap between men and women, SB 358 would substantially broaden California gender pay differential law....more