In Thai v. International Business Machines (IBM) Corp. No. A165390 (July 11, 2023), the Court of Appeal of the State of California First Appellate District, held that under Labor Code section 2802(a), the employer is required...more
The Second District Court of Appeal issued an opinion in Rocha v. U-Haul Co. of California, et al. (Cal. Ct. App., Feb. 2, 2023, No. B322599) 2023 WL 1462594, addressing questions of procedural and substantive...more
On June 17, 2022, the California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Three (Los Angeles), issued an opinion in Meza v. Pacific Bell Telephone Company (B317119, June 17, 2022) __ Cal.App.5th ___. In this...more
On June 15, 2022, the United States Supreme Court rendered an opinion in Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana that will have significant consequences for California employers and claims made under the Private Attorneys...more
6/20/2022
/ Arbitration ,
Arbitration Agreements ,
Class Action ,
Employment Litigation ,
Federal Arbitration Act ,
Labor Law Violations ,
Preemption ,
Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) ,
SCOTUS ,
Viking River Cruises ,
Viking River Cruises Inc v Moriana
The California Supreme Court issued an opinion in Lawson v. PPG Architectural Finishes, Inc. (S266001, Jan. 27, 2022), addressing the Ninth Circuit’s question of the proper method for presenting and evaluating a claim of...more
In the matter of Espinoza v. Hepta Run, Inc., et al. (Cal. Ct. App., Jan. 19, 2022, No. B306292) 2022 WL 167770, the Court of Appeal considered the following issue: Whether the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration’s...more
The California Court of Appeal, Sixth Appellate District, recently held in Santos, et al., v. El Guapos Tacos, LLC, et al. (No. H046470) that a plaintiff filing a representative cause of action under the Private Attorneys...more
In Johnson v. Maxim Healthcare Services, Inc. (“Johnson”), the California Court of Appeal, Fourth District, Division One (San Diego) held that an employee, whose individual claim is time-barred, may still pursue a...more
In Ferra v. Loews Hollywood Hotel, LLC (“Ferra”), the Supreme Court held that the term “regular rate of compensation” under Labor Code section 226.7, which requires payment for not providing an employee with a compliant meal,...more
On March 19, 2021, California Governor Gavin Newsom signed Senate Bill (SB) No. 95, renewing and expanding the state’s COVID-19 Supplemental Paid Sick Leave, following the expiration of the federal Families First Coronavirus...more
On Thursday, September 17, 2020, Governor Newsom signed Senate Bill 1159. The bill replaces Newsom’s Executive Order N-62-20 and extends the presumption of industrial injury to certain employees who fulfill the criteria...more
As soon as Governor Newsom signs the bill, California employers must abide by SB 1159 which creates for some employees an expanded presumption that COVID-19 caused illness or death qualifies for workers’ compensation...more
Although California Labor Code section 218.5 mandates an award of reasonable attorney fees to the prevailing party in any action for the nonpayment of wages, the recent decision in Betancourt v. OS Restaurant Services, LLC,...more
On April 1, 2020, the California Court of Appeal, Second District (Los Angeles) in McPherson v. EF Intercultural Foundation, Inc. (B290869), addressed the issue of whether an employee’s right to paid time off (under an...more
California’s WARN Act requires employers of certain covered establishments to provide 60 days written notice of any mass layoff, relocation, or termination. This notice is required to be given to employees and the Employment...more
The Families First Coronavirus Response Act (“FFCRA”) was signed by the President on March 18, 2020 and will become effective no later than April 2, 2020. ...more
On March 12, 2020, in addressing an issue of first impression, the California Supreme Court in Kim v. Reins International California, Inc. (S246911), held that employees do not lose standing to pursue a claim under the Labor...more
The recent opinion in Scalia v. Employer Solutions Staffing Group, LLC (9th Cir., Mar. 2, 2020, No. 18-16493) 2020 WL 992564 (“Scalia”) considered the application of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (“FLSA”) and addressed...more
The California Legislature has enacted strict requirements regulating the content that appears on employee wage statements. Labor Code section 226 sets forth the requirements in an extensive list, such as the requirements...more
In the context of employment litigation, determining whether an employer-employee relationship actually exists between the plaintiff and defendant employer is a common and critical issue. The question becomes more complex...more
It is well-known among employers that employees must be reimbursed for necessary expenditures and losses they incur in the discharge of their duties. (See Labor Code § 2802.) California Labor Code sections 6401 and 6403 go...more
The recent case of Salgado v. Carrows Restaurant, Inc., et al. presented the unique issue of whether an arbitration agreement must pre-date the lawsuit to be enforceable. Although the trial court initially ruled against...more
In Goonewardene v. ADP, LLC (S238941), the California Supreme Court has created new protections for payroll companies in lawsuits involving claims of labor violations. Although previous case law has held that employees with...more
2/26/2019
/ Breach of Contract ,
CA Supreme Court ,
Duty of Care ,
Employer Liability Issues ,
Employment Litigation ,
Negligence ,
Negligent Misrepresentation ,
Payroll Companies ,
Unpaid Wages ,
Wage and Hour ,
Wage Orders
In the matter of Jimenez-Sanchez v. Dark Horse Express, Inc. (F072599), the court confirmed that employees paid on a piece-rate basis required additional, separate compensation for rest breaks. The defendant in the case was...more
In Vasquez v. San Miguel Produce, Inc. et al. (B287696, 2019 Cal.App. LEXIS 79, publication order 1/3/19), the California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District held that a non-signatory to an arbitration agreement had...more