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 January 18, 2024, in a highly anticipated and unanimous decision, the Supreme Court of California barred striking a claim under the Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) on trial manageability grounds alone, instead...more
California employers lost the chance last week to have trial courts act as gatekeepers for the onslaught of Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) representative suits alleging wage and hour violations. Previously, some trial...more
On January 18th, the California Supreme Court in Estrada v. Royalty Carpet Mills, Inc. ruled that defendants sued under the Private Attorney General Act (PAGA) may no longer strike unmanageable claims. PAGA claims are...more
On November 8, 2023, the California Supreme Court heard oral argument in Estrada v. Royalty Carpet Mills, Inc., a case that could have profound implications for the future of Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) litigation. ...more
On September 24, 2019, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit certified to the Supreme Court of California the question of whether that court’s landmark 2018 decision in Dynamex v. Superior Court should be applied...more
• In Noel v. Thrifty Payless, Inc., the California Supreme Court clarified the scope of the ascertainability prerequisite to class certification. The Court held that proposed classes are ascertainable if defined by objective...more
In a closely-followed dispute, the California Supreme Court vacated a lower court order, based upon a default judgment in a defamation action, which had directed Yelp, Inc. (“Yelp”), a non-party to the original suit, to take...more
Despite a recent trend indicating that it might be on life support, immunity under the Communications Decency Act (CDA) remains alive and kicking, at least in California. Based on Section 230 of the CDA, on July 2, 2018, the...more
The California Supreme Court ruled that an online publisher cannot not be forced by a court to remove a third-party post that was judicially determined to be defamatory. The 4-3 ruling by the California Supreme Court, issued...more
On July 2, 2018, the California Supreme Court issued its long-awaited decision in Hassell v. Bird, a case that challenged the federal statutory immunity that online services have traditionally enjoyed under 47 U.S.C. Section...more
In a closely watched decision with significant ramifications for online speech, earlier this week, the California Supreme Court struck down an injunction requiring Yelp, a popular online consumer review platform, to remove...more
On Tuesday, April 3, the California Supreme Court will hear arguments in Hassel v. Bird. Case No. S235968. While seemingly a defamation case, it has direct implications on trade secrets owners and the rights of internet...more
On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court placed new limits on where lawsuits may be filed. In Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court of California, No. 16–466 (June 19, 2017), the justices, in an eight – one decision,...more
The Supreme Court addressed the scope of so-called “specific personal jurisdiction,” on Monday, as applied to major corporations, strengthening defendants’ potential arguments at the motion to dismiss stage. Bristol-Myers...more
The United States Supreme Court has issued an important decision rejecting California's effort to assert personal jurisdiction over nonresident corporations and curtailing the plaintiff's bar's efforts at forum shopping....more
In Brandt v. Superior Court, the California Supreme Court held that when a plaintiff proves that an insurance company withheld policy benefits in bad faith, attorneys' fees reasonably incurred to compel payment of the...more
On September 28, 2015, the Ninth Circuit held in Shukri Sakkab v. Luxottica Retail North America, Inc. that the FAA does not preempt the rule that the California Supreme Court enunciated in Iskanian v. CLS Transportation that...more