For many years, state and federal courts in California have opposed arbitration and have manufactured frameworks under which they become unenforceable despite the clear directives of the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) and...more
Relying on a technical interpretation of California’s anti-Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation (SLAPP) statute, the California Supreme Court has just ruled on what sorts of conduct forming the basis of a doctor’s...more
When a California nonexempt employee is not provided a meal or rest period, Cal. Labor Code 226.7 requires an employer to pay a penalty to that employee in the amount of one hour of that employee’s “regular rate of...more
In a sweet ruling for employers, a California court of appeal affirmed a trial court’s denial of class certification of a meal break claim due to employee timekeeping records. This decision, Salazar v. See’s Candy Shops Inc.,...more
California’s Supreme Court issued an opinion today that will likely further increase employers’ risk of class action lawsuits arising out of meal periods. The court made two significant holdings: 1. While employers are...more
In a case involving two certified classes, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals concluded this week that an employer’s per diem paid to traveling employees to reimburse for the cost of meals, incidentals and housing while...more
The California Supreme Court has concluded that the ABC Test it developed for determining whether a worker is an independent contractor or employee applies retroactively. Therefore, the ABC Test, first developed in the...more
California passed a new law expanding family leave rights to employees working for employers with five to 50 employees. The family leave rights were previously limited to employees of employers with more than 50 employees....more
This week, California enacted a law, Assembly Bill (AB) 1867, providing supplemental COVID-19-related sick leave to food-sector workers and any worker employed by a company with 500 or more employees nationwide. The law...more
he Second Circuit Court of Appeals has split with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and concluded that California’s statute to avoid strategic lawsuits against public participation (anti-SLAPP) does not apply in federal...more
Los Angeles has enacted a COVID-19 Sick Leave Ordinance, requiring that employers provide employees with sick leave for COVID-19-related reasons. Here’s a summary of the ordinance and its requirements; the text of the...more
The California Supreme Court has concluded that employees must be compensated for time spent on the employer’s premises waiting for, and undergoing, required exit searches of packages, bags, or personal technology devices. ...more
Since Oct. 11, 2019, we have been blogging about California’s new anti-arbitration law and the injunctive action filed before Chief District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller to enjoin it....more
On Jan. 10, 2020 Chief District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller further defined the scope, issues and duration of the Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) she initially issued on Dec. 30, 2019....more
A federal judge has issued a temporary restraining order halting the enforcement of Assembly Bill 51, California’s latest attempt to prevent arbitration of claims brought under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act....more
A California Court of Appeal issued a Christmas Eve ruling setting out the significance of a written employment policy for class certification purposes. ...more
With the New Year will come new laws that affect California employers. The following is the “A to Z” of changes in the law that may affect your business in 2020....more
11/25/2019
/ ABC Test ,
Arbitration Agreements ,
California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) ,
California Family Rights Act (CFRA) ,
Data Collection ,
Employee Training ,
Employer Liability Issues ,
Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) ,
FEHA ,
Hairstyle Discrimination ,
Independent Contractors ,
Lactation Accommodation ,
Misclassification ,
Reporting Requirements ,
Sexual Harassment ,
State Labor Laws
This week, a California Court of Appeal concluded in a class action case that the California Supreme Court’s Dynamex decision applies retroactively. ...more
On Oct. 10, California Governor Gavin Newsom signed into law an attempt by California’s Legislature to limit arbitration of claims under California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”). ...more
The Law -
On September 19, 2019, Governor Gavin Newsom signed Assembly Bill 5 (AB 5) into law. The law takes effect January 1, 2020, although some provisions may be applied retroactively.
...more
California’s Supreme Court has cut off an area of significant potential exposure for California employers by ruling that employees cannot recover unpaid wages on behalf of themselves and other aggrieved employees through...more
The California Supreme Court has ruled that a former employee’s retaliation or discrimination claim can be dismissed at the initial stages of litigation via California’s anti-SLAPP statute. ...more
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals changed its mind and decided to ask the California Supreme Court to decide whether the California Supreme Court’s Dynamex decision should be applied retroactively....more
When a California employee is scheduled for an on-call shift and company policy requires her to call in two hours beforehand to see whether she must work that shift, is that employee “reporting for work” even if that employee...more
The California Supreme Court has cut off another avenue for employees to sue payroll provider companies for unpaid wages. California courts have previously found that employees cannot sue a payroll company under a theory that...more