California Employment News: Can Pre- and Post-Shift Activities Be Compensated (Podcast)
California Employment News: Can Pre- and Post-Shift Activities Be Compensated
This Am Law 50 senior counsel cements his authority through two appellate analytics blogs - Legally Contented Podcast
California Employment News: Premium Pay Constitutes Wages
#WorkforceWednesday: CA Whistleblower Retaliation Cases, NYC Pay Transparency Law, Biden’s Labor Agenda - Employment Law This Week®
AGG Talks: Background Screening - Redaction of Identifiers by the Courts Update, Breaking News from California
AGG Talks: Background Screening - Redaction of Identifiers by the Courts in Michigan and California Pose Challenges for Background Checks
In Meinhardt v. City of Sunnyvale (2024) 16 Cal.5th 643 (“Meinhardt”), the California Supreme Court resolved a split in authorities over a procedural matter that will give CEQA litigants some certainty about when an appeal...more
Earlier this year, the California Supreme Court ruled that a trust amendment can be valid even if the trustor did not follow the specific amendment procedure referenced in the trust document itself because the trustor (trust...more
Repurposing old laws to challenge new technologies has become the new normal in the privacy space. Plaintiffs continue to bring a kaleidoscope of privacy claims against companies in the tech age, reviving laws like the...more
Ten is the presumptive upper limit on the number of depositions that each party may take in civil litigation in the federal courts. This number, provided by Rule 30(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, can be...more
In a welcome win for employers, the California Supreme Court recently blocked a PAGA plaintiff’s attempt to intervene and object to another PAGA plaintiff’s proposed settlement as a matter of right, in Turrieta v. Lyft, Inc.,...more
In Stone v. Alameda Health System, the California Supreme Court considered whether all public entities that are not specifically governmental in nature are exempt from the obligations in the Labor Code such as meal and rest...more
In August 2000, the California Supreme Court handed down a landmark ruling that changed the face of employment arbitration agreements going forward. That case, known as Armendariz v. Foundation Health Psychcare Services,...more
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit joins a growing number of federal circuits to hold the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2017 decision in Bristol-Myers Squibb v. Superior Court, that sharply limited the use of nationwide...more
In its latest Covid-era coverage case, John’s Grill, Inc. v. Hartford Financial Services, Group, Inc., the California Supreme Court held that an insured cannot use the “illusory coverage doctrine to transform the policy’s...more
The California Supreme Court just ruled that public employers are not subject to civil penalties under the state’s Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (PAGA). In a pivotal decision, the court held that public entities,...more
In the latest episode of Digging Into Land Use Law, Karla MacCary and Elinor Eizdi explore the law of implied easements, which is a murky area of the law that was made more clear by a recent California Supreme Court case that...more
The California Supreme Court issued its decision in Castellanos v. State (Castellanos) on July 25, 2024, ruling Proposition 22 (Prop 22), the initiative that allows businesses to classify drivers for app-based transportation...more
Seyfarth Synopsis: The California Supreme Court held that PAGA does not apply to public entity employers....more
Summary: Courts must consider allegations of a racially hostile workplace “from the perspective of a reasonable person belonging to the racial or ethnic group of the plaintiff.” Under this framework, “a single racial epithet...more
On August 15, 2024, the California Supreme Court issued a momentous unanimous decision in Stone v. Alameda Health System (“Stone”), concluding that public employers are exempt from various Labor Code provisions and PAGA...more
In a July 29, 2024, opinion, the California Supreme Court reaffirmed that a single use of a racial epithet can be severe enough to be actionable harassment under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA)....more
On July 25, 2024, CaliforniaCalifornia’s Supreme Court issued a highly anticipated ruling that allows app-based rideshare and delivery companies to classify drivers as independent contractors instead of employees, if certain...more
The California Supreme Court just held that a plaintiff in one PAGA action does not have the right to intervene or object to a judgment in a similar action even if a settlement or other resolution in that similar case results...more
In a long-awaited decision, the California Supreme Court resolved a split in appellate authority in Turrieta v. Lyft, Inc., holding that a plaintiff who files a claim under the state's Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA)...more
On August 1, 2024, in Turrieta v. Lyft et al., the California Supreme Court held that a plaintiff in a Private Attorneys General Act (“PAGA”) action does not have a right to intervene -- or to object to or vacate a judgment...more
The “Summer of PAGA” continued last week when the California Supreme Court ruled in Turrieta v. Lyft, Inc., Case No. S271721, that a plaintiff in a Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) action does not have standing to...more
On July 25, 2024, the California Supreme Court unanimously ruled that Uber Technologies Inc. (“Uber”) and Lyft Inc. (“Lyft”) can continue classifying their California drivers as independent contractors....more
CDF Wage and Hour Task Force – Monthly Updates and Tips - On Thursday, the California Supreme Court issued its much-anticipated decision in the matter of Turrieta v. Lyft, Inc.....more
Seyfarth Synopsis: The California Supreme Court ruled that an isolated, one-time, use of a racial slur may be so severe—when viewed in relation to the totality of the circumstances—as to alter the conditions of employment,...more
California courts, like most federal courts, have historically held that a party does not waive its contractual right to compel arbitration unless the party opposing arbitration has been prejudiced by the moving party’s delay...more