The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit recently held that an employer may challenge an employee’s entitlement to the benefits of the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) without the necessity of obtaining a second...more
On July 15, 2024, the Supreme Court of California issued a decision that could provide courts in the state with significant discretion to refuse to enforce employment arbitration agreements even if only one term is determined...more
A California appellate court recently denied enforcement of an arbitration agreement because (1) it contained provisions the court found problematic, and (2) the employer presented the agreement to the employee for electronic...more
1/23/2024
/ Arbitration ,
Arbitration Agreements ,
Disability Discrimination ,
E-Signatures ,
Employer Liability Issues ,
Harassment ,
Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) ,
Race Discrimination ,
Retaliation ,
Unconscionable Contracts ,
Unenforceable Contract Terms ,
Wrongful Termination
On February 15, 2023, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals blocked a 2020 California law that attempted to prohibit employers from requiring employees and job applicants to agree to arbitration as a condition of employment. The...more
2/17/2023
/ Arbitration ,
Arbitration Agreements ,
Employment Contract ,
Employment Litigation ,
Employment Policies ,
Federal Arbitration Act ,
Governor Newsom ,
Hiring & Firing ,
Mandatory Arbitration Clauses ,
Preemption ,
State Labor Laws ,
Unenforceable Contract Terms
There is a new, but not entirely unexpected, front in the continuing war over California Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) claims. On July 20, 2022, the California Supreme Court granted review in Adolph v. Uber...more
On June 15, 2022, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled in favor of Viking River Cruises Inc. in a case over whether it could use an arbitration agreement to force a lawsuit brought under California’s Private Attorneys...more
On March 30, 2022, the Supreme Court of the United States heard oral argument in a critically important case for California employers, Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana, Case No. 20-1573. As we previously discussed, the...more
On March 30, 2022, the Supreme Court of the United States will hear the matter of Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana, Case No. 20-1573. The Court will answer the question, “Whether the Federal Arbitration Act requires...more
In a much-awaited decision, the Supreme Court of the United States indicated that it would consider whether the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) preempts California’s rule prohibiting arbitration of Private Attorneys General...more
The battle concerning California’s Assembly Bill (AB) No. 51 - the law seeking effectively to ban mandatory employment arbitration in California - continues to rage.
On October 20, 2021, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the...more
10/23/2021
/ Arbitration ,
Arbitration Agreements ,
Chamber of Commerce ,
Employment Contract ,
En Banc Review ,
Federal Arbitration Act ,
Mandatory Arbitration Clauses ,
Petition For Rehearing ,
Preemption ,
Proposed Legislation ,
State Labor Laws
In a split 2-1 decision that likely raises more questions than it answers, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals cast some doubt upon the ability of employers to implement mandatory arbitration agreements with their employees....more
9/17/2021
/ Appeals ,
Arbitration ,
Arbitration Agreements ,
Chamber of Commerce ,
Contract Terms ,
Employment Contract ,
Employment Litigation ,
Federal Arbitration Act ,
Governor Newsom ,
Mandatory Arbitration Clauses ,
Split of Authority ,
State Labor Laws
On February 28, 2017, the California Court of Appeal issued a significant decision in Vaquero v. Stoneledge Furniture LLC (No. B269657). The decision, which was certified for publication, is the first ruling by a California...more
On March 28, 2016, the Supreme Court of California issued another ruling on the enforceability of arbitration agreements. In Baltazar v. Forever 21, Inc. (S208345), the court considered the enforceability of an arbitration...more