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
Last week, the California Supreme Court, in a rare unanimous ruling, struck down a Monterey County voter-approved local initiative that would have banned oil and gas drilling and imposed severe restrictions on oil and gas...more
In 2016, through a voter initiative called Measure Z, the people of Monterey County, California, enacted a ban on two features of oil and gas operations. One was a ban on injecting or impounding wastewater from operations....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, 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
In a 5-2 opinion filed August 1, 2022, a divided California Supreme Court held the Federal Power Act (“FPA”; 16 U.S.C. § 791a et seq.) does not “occupy the field” and entirely preempt CEQA’s application to the state’s...more
On March 30, 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral argument in Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana, Case No. 20-1573. At issue was a rule announced by the California Supreme Court in Iskanian v. CLS Transportation Los...more
Today, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral argument in Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana, Case No. 20-1573. Wage and hour practitioners, particularly in California, have watched the case with keen interest because it...more
In the landmark case of Iskanian v. CLS Transportation Los Angeles, LLC, 59 Cal. 4th 348 (2014), the California Supreme Court held that an arbitration agreement purporting to waive the right to bring a representative action...more
On 30 April 2018, the California Supreme Court issued the seminal decision in Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. Superior Court, adopting the “A-B-C Test” for determining independent contractor status in the state. The A-B-C...more
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has issued a long-awaited decision on the question of whether AB5, California’s strict independent contractor misclassification statute, may be applied to motor carriers, or whether the...more
On December 11, 2019, the California Supreme Court granted review of the Third District’s decision in County of Butte v. Department of Water Resources, dismissing a CEQA challenge to DWR’s relicensing application to the...more
Last week, a California federal judge dismissed with leave to amend a claim made against a Nevada company by the spouse of an employee who contracted COVID-19, allegedly at his workplace, and later transmitted the disease to...more
Shirvanyan v. Los Angeles Community. College District, No. B296593, 2020 WL 7706321 (Cal. Ct. App. Nov. 30, 2020) - The availability of a reasonable accommodation is an element of a claim under the Fair Employment and...more
Amidst the ongoing power struggle between communications service providers striving for unfettered access to rights-of-way to place their facilities, and municipalities working to protect their authority over such...more
The inclusion in arbitration clauses of a waiver of public injunctive relief has gained popularity generally, but such a waiver is currently unenforceable in California. However, California’s controversial precedent on the...more
Seyfarth Synopsis: The California Supreme Court invalidated an employment arbitration agreement on August 29, 2019. At issue in OTO, LLC v. Kho was an agreement to arbitrate employment claims, including wage claims. Under the...more
On June 28, 2019, the Ninth Circuit held in three separate cases that the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) does not preempt the California Supreme Court’s holding in McGill v. Citibank, N.A., 2 Cal.5th 945 (2017) — otherwise...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
Seyfarth Synopsis: The California Supreme Court held that the Labor Management Relations Act does not preempt claims under the Labor Code where a defense requires little more than referring to a collective bargaining...more
Local governments may require a permit conditioned on compatibility with aesthetic standards to install and maintain wireless communications infrastructure in the public right-of-way, the California Supreme Court held in...more
As California employers wait to see how the California legislature votes on independent contractor bills after the new ABC test was announced by the California Supreme Court last year, a recent federal case out of the U.S....more
Yesterday marked a win for local government in the fight against preemption over local control of their streets. The California Supreme Court issued a decision in the T-Mobile West LLC v. City and County of San Francisco...more
The federal appeals court that oversees cases arising from California recently handed down an opinion that helps provide guidance to those employers trying to comply with collective bargaining agreements while simultaneously...more
Seyfarth Synopsis: Employment-related cases pending before the California Supreme Court concern various questions that sometimes seem technical, but the answers they elicit will have big consequences. ...more
In Troester v. Starbucks Corporation, the California Supreme Court recently held that the federal de minimis doctrine does not apply to claims for unpaid wages under the California Labor Code. As a follow-up to our recent...more