News & Analysis as of

CA Supreme Court State Labor Laws

BakerHostetler

It’s Settled: A PAGA Plaintiff Has No Right to Intervene, Vacate or Object to Another PAGA Plaintiff’s Settlement, Affirms the...

BakerHostetler on

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

Ervin Cohen & Jessup LLP

Severing Unconscionable Terms in Employment Arbitration Agreements

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

Perkins Coie

California Supreme Court Upholds Proposition 22

Perkins Coie on

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

CDF Labor Law LLP

Supreme Court Holds that Public Entities Are Not Subject to PAGA and Various Labor Code Violations

CDF Labor Law LLP on

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

Benesch

California Supreme Court Unanimously Rules that Uber, Lyft Drivers May Remain Classified as Independent Contractors

Benesch on

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

McGlinchey Stafford

Court Upholds Law Classifying App-Based Drivers as Independent Contractors: Does What Happens in California, Stay in California?

McGlinchey Stafford on

The California Supreme Court recently upheld a California law that classifies drivers for app-based transportation companies, such as Uber, Lyft, or DoorDash, as independent contractors and not employees, provided the company...more

Epstein Becker & Green

The Gig Continues: California Supreme Court Upholds Proposition 22

Epstein Becker & Green on

On July 25, 2024, the California Supreme Court issued its long-awaited ruling in Castellanos et al., v. State of California and Protect App-Based Drivers and Services, et al., upholding the 2020 voter initiative known as...more

Littler

California Supreme Court Upholds Proposition 22

Littler on

After years of litigation, the California Supreme Court upheld Proposition 22, a voter-approved law allowing app-based drivers to work as independent contractors. The Court rejected a challenge by a group of labor unions,...more

Farella Braun + Martel LLP

PAGA Amendments: A Reprieve for Employers Proactively Addressing Labor Code Violations, but Ambiguities Remain

On July 1, 2024, California Governor Gavin Newsom signed into law a package of reforms to the Private Attorneys General Act (“PAGA”), a statute that has created headaches for employers and driven up wage and hour litigation...more

Mintz - Employment Viewpoints

A New Chapter in California’s Ongoing PAGA is Lava Saga: PAGA Reform

Aggrieved employee is any person who was employed by the alleged violator and against whom one or more of the alleged violations was committed. An “aggrieved employee” is any person who was employed by the alleged violator...more

Clark Hill PLC

California PAGA Reform Brings Employers Relief

Clark Hill PLC on

California employers can finally breathe a sigh of relief. The long-awaited and much-needed Private Attorneys General Act (“PAGA”) reform has arrived. While the reform falls well short of the ballot initiative efforts to...more

Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP

California Supreme Court Finds Good Faith Defense For Employers

When is an employer’s violation of providing employees with wage statements knowing and intentional, triggering financial penalties? Taking its second look at the case, the California Supreme Court ruled that an...more

Weintraub Tobin

California Employment News: Can Pre- and Post-Shift Activities Be Compensated

Weintraub Tobin on

Meagan Bainbridge and Lukas Clary from Weintraub Tobin's Labor and Employment Group dive into the California Supreme Court case Huerta vs. CSI Electrical Contractors. Discover the key takeaways for employers on compensable...more

Locke Lord LLP

California Supreme Court Ruling Gives Guidance on Compensable Time Under California ‎Law

Locke Lord LLP on

On March 25, 2024, the California Supreme Court issued its decision in Huerta v. CSI Electrical Contractors. This ruling provides important guidance as to what does and does not constitute sufficient employer control to make...more

Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP

California Supreme Court Rules on 'Hours Worked'

The California Supreme Court answered a trio of questions from the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals about “hours worked” under Wage Order No. 16, which governs the construction, drilling, logging and mining industries....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

Littler

California Supreme Court Affirms Good-Faith Efforts May Shield Employers in Wage Statement Lawsuits

Littler on

In a favorable ruling for employers defending against wage statement compliance claims, the California Supreme Court in Naranjo v. Spectrum Services Inc. (Naranjo) settled an age-old dispute by determining that an employer...more

Amundsen Davis LLC

California’s Supreme Court Makes It Harder For Employees to Recover Penalties In Wage Statement Claims

Amundsen Davis LLC on

On May 6, 2024, California LawCalifornia’s Supreme Court, in a rare and surprising “employer friendly” decision, held that an employer can avoid penalties under California’s wage statement law, Cal. Lab. Code § 226, if it...more

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

California Supreme Court Rules Employer Can Avoid Penalties for Good-Faith Wage Reporting Violation

On May 6, 2024, the Supreme Court of California held that when an employer “reasonably and in good faith” believes it complied with California’s legal requirement to provide accurate wage statements and it does not, the...more

Meyers Nave

Wage and Hour Policies Amid Rising PAGA Filings

Meyers Nave on

At Meyers Nave, we prioritize assisting our clients in establishing and maintaining wage and hour policies that comply with legal standards. This includes implementing effective systems and processes to ensure all levels of...more

Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP

CA Supreme Court Grants Employers Relief on Wage Statement Penalties Under Labor Code Section 226

On Monday May 7, the California Supreme Court confirmed, in Naranjo v. Spectrum Securities Services, Inc., S279397.PDF (ca.gov), that penalties authorized under Labor Code Section 226 (“Section 226”) for “knowing and...more

Seyfarth Shaw LLP

Good Faith Defense Applies To Wage Statement Penalty Claims

Seyfarth Shaw LLP on

The California Supreme Court concluded that the “good faith” defense applies to claims seeking to impose penalties under California Labor Code section 226. An employee must show that an employer’s failure to comply with...more

McGuireWoods LLP

California Supreme Court: Exit Security Checks in Personal Vehicles Are Compensable

McGuireWoods LLP on

On March 25, 2024, the California Supreme Court held that workers are entitled to compensation for time spent undergoing exit security checks that included an inspection of their personal vehicle. In the same decision, the...more

Morgan Lewis

California Supreme Court Ruling Gives Guidance on Compensable Time Under California Law

Morgan Lewis on

The California Supreme Court issued its decision in Huerta v. CSI Electrical Contractors, providing further guidance to employers on when employee time spent in (1) security exit procedures, (2) traveling on 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

358 Results
 / 
View per page
Page: of 15

"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