On January 14, 2022, in Lehauli v. All Nippon Airways Co., Case No. 21STCV02847, Judge Holly J. Fujie of the Los Angeles Superior Court granted the defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, finding that the plaintiff...more
Key Points -
On January 1, 2022, SB 331—also known as the Silenced No More Act—went into effect in California. It prohibits clauses, in settlement agreements for civil or administrative claims, which prevent or restrict the...more
On January 11, 2022, Judge Cunningham of the Los Angeles Superior Court conditionally approved a $7.5 million agreement to settle three overlapping Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) actions, the lead case titled Reyes v....more
In recent months, a split of authority has emerged in the California Court of Appeal regarding whether a nonparty aggrieved employee has standing to intervene in a Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) action to challenge a...more
In Iskanian v. CLS Transportation Los Angeles, LLC, 59 Cal. 4th 348 (2014), the California Supreme Court held that an arbitration agreement purporting to waive the right to bring a representative action under the Private...more
On December 1, 2021, the California Court of Appeal (4th District) issued its decision in Gunther v. Alaska Airlines, Inc., Case No. D076762, holding that heightened penalties for wage statement violations under Labor Code...more
On November 30, 2021, the California Court of Appeal (First District) issued its decision in Moniz v. Adecco USA, Inc., Case No. A159410, 2021 WL 5578298, which defines the standard for courts to apply when reviewing...more
Earlier this year, in Wesson v. Staples the Office Superstore, LLC, 68 Cal. App. 5th 746 (2021), the California Court of Appeals held that courts are empowered to limit or strike representative claims under the Private...more
In the landmark case of Iskanian v. CLS Transportation Los Angeles, LLC, 59 Cal. 4th 348 (2014), the California Supreme Court held that an arbitration agreement purporting to waive the right to bring a representative action...more
On October 7, 2021, the California Court of Appeal (4th District) issued its decision in Quinonez v. Payless 4 Plumbing, Inc., Case No. E074467, clarifying what allegations in a notice letter to the Labor and Workforce...more
On September 30, 2021, the California Court of Appeal (4th District) decided Uribe v. Crown Building Maintenance Co., Case No. G057836. At issue in Uribe was a Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) settlement that purported to...more
Earlier this month, a coalition including the California Chamber of Commerce, California New Car Dealers Association and Western Growers filed a proposed initiative measure entitled The Fair Pay and Employer Accountability...more
On September 30, 2021, the California Court of Appeal (Second District) issued its decision in Turrieta v. Lyft, Inc., Case No. B304701, which limits the ability of nonparty “aggrieved employees” to challenge a Private...more
On September 28, 2021, the California Court of Appeal (4th District) issued a counterintuitive decision in Amaro v. Anaheim Arena Mgmt., LLC, Case No. G058371, holding that a PAGA settlement may release claims from outside of...more
On September 30, 2021, the California Court of Appeal (4th District) decided Uribe v. Crown Building Maintenance Co., Case No. G057836. At issue in Uribe was a Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) settlement that purported to...more
On September 27, 2021, Gov. Newsom signed into law SB 646, which exempts janitorial employees from PAGA if they are covered by a collective bargaining agreement meeting certain minimum criteria. The bill, which codifies a new...more
Earlier this year, the California Court of Appeal ruled that a plaintiff was permitted to pursue a PAGA claim for alleged violations of Labor Code Section 432.5, even though the statute of limitations on her individual claim...more
In Wesson v. Staples The Office Superstore, LLC, the California Court of Appeal held that “courts have inherent authority to ensure that PAGA claims can be fairly and efficiently tried and, if necessary, may strike claims...more
In Donohue v. AMN Services, LLC, the California Supreme Court held that where employees’ time records reflect a missed, late or short meal break, a “rebuttable presumption” arises that a proper meal break was not provided....more
3/9/2021
/ CA Supreme Court ,
Class Action ,
Class Certification ,
Employer Liability Issues ,
Employment Litigation ,
Employment Policies ,
Labor Law Violations ,
Rebuttable Presumptions ,
Recordkeeping Requirements ,
Rest and Meal Break ,
Rounding ,
State Labor Laws ,
Timekeeping ,
Wage and Hour
Working from home may not be practical in many work environments, for example, where company tools, machinery or equipment may be required to accomplish a job. Where a company must suspend work or close a work location, the...more
3/13/2020
/ Coronavirus/COVID-19 ,
Employer Liability Issues ,
Employment Policies ,
Health and Safety ,
Infectious Diseases ,
OSHA ,
Over-Time ,
Public Health ,
Reasonable Accommodation ,
Recordkeeping Requirements ,
Remote Working ,
Rest and Meal Break ,
Sick Leave ,
Timekeeping ,
Wage and Hour ,
Workplace Safety
- The California Supreme Court held that time Apple employees spent waiting for and undergoing mandatory security inspections is compensable.
- The decision rejects the holding by some lower courts that if employees could...more
• On September 12, 2019, in ZB, N.A. v. Superior Court (Lawson), Case No. S246711, the California Supreme Court held the Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) does not allow recovery of unpaid wages under Labor Code Section...more
• On September 10, 2019, the California State Legislature passed AB 5, which codifies the “ABC test” in Dynamex Ops. West Inc. v. Superior Court, 4 Cal. 5th 903 (2018), for determining whether a worker is an employee or an...more
9/13/2019
/ ABC Test ,
Employee Definition ,
Employer Liability Issues ,
Employment Litigation ,
Exempt-Employees ,
Governor Newsom ,
Hiring & Firing ,
Independent Contractors ,
Labor Code ,
Misclassification ,
Pending Legislation ,
State Labor Laws ,
Wage and Hour ,
Wage Orders
• The Ninth Circuit has withdrawn its May 2, 2019, opinion in Vazquez v. Jan-Pro Franchising Int’l, Inc., in which it held that the California Supreme Court’s Dynamex decision regarding independent contractors and employees...more
• In Vazquez v. Jan-Pro Franchising Int’l, Inc., the 9th Circuit held that a landmark California Supreme Court decision regarding independent contractors and employees applies retroactively.
• The 9th Circuit held that the...more