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
On July 17, 2023, the California Supreme Court delivered its highly anticipated response to the United States Supreme Court decision in Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana, 142 S. Ct. 1906 (2022), clarifying the effect of...more
On July 17, the California Supreme Court issued its opinion in Adolph v. Uber Technologies, Inc. (S274671, Cal. Jul. 2023), holding that an employee who has been compelled to arbitrate claims under the Labor Code Private...more
In June 2022, the United States Supreme Court held in Viking River Cruises v. Moriana—contrary to California precedent—that the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) allows PAGA claims to be split into individual and non-individual...more
California’s Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) authorizes current and former employees to bring a representative action for civil penalties on behalf of the state against an employer for Labor Code violations committed...more
Last year, the U.S. Supreme Court issued an employer-friendly decision in Viking River Cruises v. Moriana. There, it held that the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) preempts the California Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA)...more
On July 17, 2023, the California Supreme Court ruled that where an employee has brought a California Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) action that is comprised of both individual and non-individual claims, a court order...more
On July 17, the California Supreme Court issued its decision in Adolph v. Uber Technologies, Inc. (Cal. Sup. Ct. Case No. S274671), in which it addressed whether a plaintiff who is compelled to arbitrate their individual...more
California employees can now seek representative (non-individual) Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) penalties in court even when their individual PAGA claims are compelled to arbitration, thanks to a highly anticipated...more
Yesterday, the California Supreme Court, in Adolph v. Uber Technologies, Inc., addressed the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana, 142 S.Ct. 1906 (2022). The much-anticipated Adolph...more
The U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion, 563 U.S. 333 (2011) caused a shockwave in California’s class action bar when it held that the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”) preempted California’s former...more
It’s hard to keep up with all the recent changes to labor and employment law. While the law always seems to evolve at a rapid pace, there have been an unprecedented number of changes for the past few years—and this past month...more
Takeaway: Businesses operating in California now face another hurdle in drafting enforceable arbitration agreements. The California Supreme Court has invalidated a provision in an aggressive class action waiver purporting to...more
An arbitration agreement preventing individuals from seeking injunctive relief was void as contrary to California public policy and could not be enforced under California law, the California Supreme Court recently determined...more
On April 6, the California Supreme Court issued a unanimous opinion in McGill v. Citibank, finding that a pre-dispute arbitration agreement was unenforceable to the extent it required the plaintiff to waive her right to seek...more
In a closely-watched case, the California Supreme Court recently held in McGill v. Citibank, N.A. that arbitration clauses that foreclose a plaintiff’s right to pursue public injunctive relief in any forum are invalid and...more
Seyfarth Synopsis: No California contractual provision, including one in an arbitration agreement, can waive the statutory right to seek injunctive relief to protect the general public. McGill v. Citibank, N.A. (April 6,...more
On April 6, 2017, in the matter Sharon McGill v. Citibank, N.A., the California Supreme Court ruled unanimously that an arbitration agreement that waives a statutory right to seek public injunctive relief in any forum, is...more
On April 6, 2017, the California Supreme Court, in McGill v. Citibank, N.A., No. S224086, ruled that a provision in Citibank’s arbitration agreement purporting to waive the right to seek “public” injunctive relief under...more
On Thursday, April 7, 2017, in McGill v. Citibank, the California Supreme Court held that a pre-dispute arbitration agreement that waives the right to seek public injunctive relief is contrary to public policy and thus...more
Arbitrator or Judge? California Supreme Court Weighs in - Why it matters - Yet again, the California Supreme Court considered arbitration in the context of an employment agreement, this time reflecting on whether a...more
On July 28, 2016, the California Supreme Court added to the ever-changing body of case law regarding classwide arbitration when it held that “no universal rule” exists regarding who (the court or the arbitrator) should decide...more
The California Supreme Court has held that an arbitrator, rather than a court, has the power to decide whether class claims can proceed in arbitration, where the parties’ arbitration agreement is ambiguous on the question....more
Seyfarth Synopsis: The California Supreme Court, in Sandquist v. Lebo Automotive, deviated from rulings of most federal circuit courts to hold that the question of “who decides” whether class arbitration is available—courts...more
California’s back-and-forth on arbitrations and class actions continued again this week. In a key 4-3 decision the California Supreme Court held that the arbitrator—not the court—can decide whether an arbitration...more
Tuesday, by a two-to-one vote, the Ninth Circuit joined the California Supreme Court in holding that Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) claims are an exception to the Federal Arbitration Act. In Sakkab v. Luxottica Retail...more