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 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
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 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
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 Wassmann v. South Orange County Community College District, No. G053411, published June 12, 2018, the California Court of Appeal held that an employee was barred from bringing an Intentional Infliction of Emotional...more
In William Bustos v. Global P.E.T, Inc., et al. (Cal Ct. App., Dec. 22, 2017, No. E065869), William Bustos brought a disability discrimination action against his former employers, Global P.E.T., Inc. and Global Plastics, Inc....more
It is well-established that the workers’ compensation system serves as the exclusive remedy for an employee who suffers injuries arising during the course and scope of employment, including psychiatric injuries. Recently,...more
On remand from the United States Supreme Court, the Ninth Circuit again vacated a District Court’s Order denying enforcement of an administrative subpoena issued to an employer by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission...more