The case of Parra Rodriguez v. Packers Sanitation Services LTD., LLC typifies the reason employers and employment counsel must stay on top of arbitration case developments....more
Following the United States Supreme Court’s landmark ruling in Moriana v. Viking River Cruises, California courts were tasked with the open question of whether an “aggrieved” employee whose individual Private Attorneys...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
The District of Massachusetts’s recent decision in Fairfield v. DCD Auto. Holdings, Inc., No. 22-cv-11977, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 109463 (D. Mass. June 26, 2023) serves as a key reminder for businesses not only to have...more
• The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio has ruled that the arbitration provision of an employee stock ownership plan (ESOP) does not apply to the plaintiff's class representative because she had "cashed...more
On August 7, 2015, Justice R. LeBlanc of the Federal Court of Canada dismissed a motion to certify a class action in Murphy v. Amway Canada Corporation, clarifying the conditions a proposed class plaintiff must meet in order...more