News & Analysis as of

CA Supreme Court Corporate Counsel

Ervin Cohen & Jessup LLP

Tiny Fonts, Narrow Holding: California Clarifies When Fine Print Matters

The California Supreme Court’s decision in Fuentes v. Empire Nissan, Inc. resolves a growing split among the lower courts over whether tiny, hard‑to‑read print in an arbitration agreement counts as procedural...more

Littler

California High Court Limits Use of Formatting and “Fine Print” Arguments to Defeat Arbitration

Littler on

The California Supreme Court (the “Court”) has confirmed that an arbitration agreement’s formatting—standing alone—does not render its terms substantively unconscionable, even where the text is difficult to read.1 The Court...more

Jackson Lewis P.C.

California Supreme Court Cases Employers Should Watch in 2026

Jackson Lewis P.C. on

Several employment-related cases are currently pending before the California Supreme Court, and their outcomes could have a significant impact on workplace policies and risk management for employers and HR professionals....more

Ervin Cohen & Jessup LLP

California Supreme Court Defines “Reasonable Effort” That is Required for a Good-Faith Defense to a Claim for Unpaid Wages

Ervin Cohen & Jessup LLP on

The California Supreme Court recently issued an opinion that serves as an important reminder to employers: good intentions regarding compliance with wage laws are not enough to avoid liquidated damages for minimum wage...more

Amundsen Davis LLC

National State Employment Law Update – September 2025 Changes

Amundsen Davis LLC on

Below are the key state employment law changes that have occurred in September 2025. Employers should review these updates to ensure compliance with new leave rights, posting requirements, and employee protections across...more

Constangy, Brooks, Smith & Prophete, LLP

California Supreme Court raises bar for employers: “We didn’t know” is no defense

In a unanimous decision that strengthened California’s already robust worker protections laws, the state’s Supreme Court has made it harder for employers to avoid increased damages for minimum wage violations. The ruling in...more

Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart,...

Supreme Court of California Rules Employers Can’t Claim Ignorance on State Wage Violations

On August 21, 2025, the Supreme Court of California ruled that employers must demonstrate that they took reasonable steps to comply with minimum wage laws to mount a good-faith defense against liquidated damages. The decision...more

Snell & Wilmer

California Supreme Court Resolves Long-Running Dispute Over Delaware Forum Selection Clauses

Snell & Wilmer on

In a closely watched decision issued on July 21, 2025, the California Supreme Court, in EpicentRx, Inc. v. Superior Court, held that a forum selection clause requiring shareholder lawsuits to be brought in the Delaware Court...more

Jenner & Block

Client Alert: Employers Beware: Employees Are Seeking Damages for Unenforceable Noncompetes

Jenner & Block on

We have seen a rise in employees going on the offensive and suing their former employers for damages for not informing them that their noncompete is invalid under the applicable state law or for exaggerating the scope of a...more

Jackson Lewis P.C.

California Supreme Court Cases Employers Should Watch in 2025

Jackson Lewis P.C. on

The California Supreme Court issued several important decisions in 2024 about issues such as the application of PAGA to public employees and the definition of “hours worked.” Several cases are pending before the state’s high...more

Jackson Lewis P.C.

A Reminder of Changes to California Workplace Law from 2024

Jackson Lewis P.C. on

As we wrap up 2024, here is a review of some of the changes to California employment law that will continue to affect employers in 2025. Legislative Changes...more

Fox Rothschild LLP

One Use of the “N-word” Lands an Employer in a Jury Trial – Lessons to Learn

Fox Rothschild LLP on

One instance of a coworker directing the “N-word” to a Black employee can rise to the level of being so severe as to make for a racially hostile work environment in violation of the California Fair Employment and Housing Act...more

Proskauer on Privacy

Same Song, Different Tune: Plaintiffs’ Bar Adds the Song-Beverly Credit Card Act to its Privacy Repertoire

Proskauer on Privacy on

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

Jackson Lewis P.C.

Another Circuit Rules Bristol-Myers Applies to FLSA Collective Actions, Bars Out-of-State Opt-Ins

Jackson Lewis P.C. on

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

Foley & Lardner LLP

California Supreme Court Affirms Single Comment Can Constitute Harassment and Addresses Standard for Retaliation

Foley & Lardner LLP on

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

Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP

California Supreme Court Confirms the “Knowing and Intentional” Standard of California’s Wage Statement Law Requires a “Knowing...

In Naranjo v. Spectrum Security Services, the case’s second appearance before the California Supreme Court in two years, the Supreme Court confirmed that an employer does not incur civil penalties for failing to report unpaid...more

Fisher Phillips

Good Faith Goes a Long Way to Defeat Wage Statement Claims: 4 Tips for Employers After California Supreme Court Win

Fisher Phillips on

Employers finally received some welcome news from the California Supreme Court Monday and now have a better shot of successfully using a “good faith” defense to wage-and-hour lawsuits. According to the ruling, if an employer...more

BakerHostetler

California Supreme Court Holds that Employees Must Be Paid for Time Driving Through and To Security Checkpoints

BakerHostetler on

California employers who require employees to pass through a security checkpoint or swipe a security badge before exiting their worksites but after clocking out could potentially face significant liability for violating...more

Paul Hastings LLP

California Supreme Court Clarifies Whether Employers Must Pay for Certain Pre-Shift Activities

Paul Hastings LLP on

In Huerta v. CSI Electrical Contractors, No. S275431 (March 25, 2024), the California Supreme Court issued an important decision relating to whether California employers must pay non-exempt employees for certain pre-shift...more

Buchalter

The California Supreme Court Sends A Message That Any Employer Control Over Employees—Even If The Employees Are Not Actively...

Buchalter on

On March 25, 2024, the California Supreme Court issued its decision in Huerta v. CSI Electrical Contractors, which provides certain clarity on nuanced wage and hour issues and the scope of the term “hours worked.” In this...more

Davis Wright Tremaine LLP

California Supreme Court Rules Employer's Agent Directly Liable for Violations of State Discrimination Laws

Last week, the California Supreme Court unanimously held that California's Fair Employment and Housing Act ("FEHA") applies not only to employers but also to business entities performing services as agents for employers....more

Proskauer - California Employment Law

California Expands FEHA Liability to Include “Institutional Agents” of Employers

California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) is already one of the most employee-friendly state civil rights laws in the country. Until now, it was not clear whether employees could sue not only their direct employers...more

McGuireWoods LLP

Uber’s Challenge to Non-Individual PAGA Standing Crashes at the California Supreme Court

McGuireWoods LLP on

In a significant blow to employment-related arbitration agreements, the California Supreme Court ruled in Adolph v. Uber Technologies, Inc. that an employee has standing to bring non-individual, representative California...more

Laughlin, Falbo, Levy & Moresi LLP

Kuciemba Update: Supreme Court Answers Long-Awaited Questions on Family Member COVID-19 Claims

In a unanimous opinion, the California Supreme Court answered two questions posed to it by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal, finding that an employer is not liable for a COVID-19 injury sustained by an employee’s household...more

Carlton Fields

2 Ways Calif. Justices' PAGA Ruling May Play Out

Carlton Fields on

Under California's Private Attorneys General Act, does an aggrieved employee — who has been compelled to arbitrate their individual claims under PAGA and the California Labor Code — maintain statutory standing to pursue PAGA...more

107 Results
 / 
View per page
Page: of 5

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
- hide
- hide