#WorkforceWednesday: SCOTUS Rules on PAGA, Fifth Circuit Rules on COVID-19 Under WARN, Illinois Expands Bereavement Leave - Employment Law This Week®
California Employment News: US Supreme Court “Viking River” Decision Brings PAGA Relief for CA Employers
In Balderas v. Fresh Start Harvesting, Inc., 101 Cal. App. 5th 533 (2024), the plaintiff sued her former employer on behalf of other employees but not in her individual capacity (that is, she brought only a representative...more
On May 10, 2024, the Ninth Circuit decided Yuriria Diaz v. Macys West Stores, Inc. In that case, Diaz brought California Private Attorneys General Act (“PAGA”) claims against her former employer. The district court...more
A recent unpublished California Court of Appeal decision, Hegemier v. A Better Life Recovery LLC, Cal. Ct. App., 4th Dist., No. G061892, demonstrates the potential consequence of drafting an arbitration agreement without...more
Johnson v. Lowe’s Home Centers, LLC, 93 F.4th 459 (9th Cir. 2024) - The Ninth Circuit vacated a district court’s dismissal of a former employee’s “non-individual” Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) claims in the wake of...more
The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals applied the California Supreme Court’s interpretation of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision on the intersection of the Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) claims and arbitration in...more
There are times when one would rather not be proven right. Nearly four years ago, a California district court invalidated AB 51, which sought to prohibit mandatory arbitration by, among other things, calling for criminal...more
Hop into the time machine with me so I can take a quick victory lap before I revert to being the ever-cautious counselor. Way back in October 2019, I not-so-subtly indicated my belief that a California statute banning...more
The California Supreme Court issued a much-anticipated Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) decision in Adolph v. Uber Technologies, Inc. in July, departing from the United States Supreme Court’s 2022 ruling in Viking River...more
On July 17, the California Supreme Court issued its long-awaited decision in Adolph v. Uber Technologies, Inc., finally clarifying the question of what constitutes standing under California's Private Attorneys General Act...more
One month after the U.S. Supreme Court rejected California’s ban on enforcing agreements that require the individual arbitration of claims under the Private Attorneys General Act of 2004, the California Supreme Court granted...more
On July 17, 2023, the California Supreme Court delivered its highly anticipated response to the United States Supreme Court decision in Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana, 142 S. Ct. 1906 (2022), clarifying the effect of...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, we discussed the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana (“Viking River”), 596 U.S. [142 S.Ct. 1906] (2022), holding that an arbitration agreement between a...more
In a much-anticipated decision, the California Supreme Court in Adolph v. Uber Technologies unanimously held that a plaintiff, compelled to arbitrate individual claims under the Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA), does not...more
To have Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) standing, a plaintiff must be an “aggrieved employee,” which is an individual who worked for an alleged violator and personally sustained at least one Labor Code violation. ...more
On July 17, the California Supreme Court issued its opinion in Adolph v. Uber Technologies, Inc. (S274671, Cal. Jul. 2023), holding that an employee who has been compelled to arbitrate claims under the Labor Code Private...more
Recently, in Adolph v. Uber Tech., Inc., the California Supreme Court held that plaintiffs who proceed to arbitration on individual labor code claims do not lose standing to bring representative claims in court under the...more
The California Supreme Court has closed the door on the employer-friendly rule the U.S. Supreme Court set out in the case of Viking River Cruises Inc. v. Moriana. There, the Supreme Court held that employees could waive their...more
On July 17, 2023, the California Supreme Court decided an important state law issue raised by the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana, 142 S. Ct. 1906 (2022). Viking River Cruises...more
In June 2022, the United States Supreme Court held in Viking River Cruises v. Moriana—contrary to California precedent—that the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) allows PAGA claims to be split into individual and non-individual...more
In June 2022, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled in Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana that (1) the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) requires the enforcement of an arbitration agreement that waives an employee’s...more
The Adolph v. Uber Ruling Thwarts The U.S. Supreme Court’s Landmark Viking Decision - In a widely anticipated but unsurprising ruling, the California Supreme Court on July 17, 2023 issued its decision in Adolph v. Uber...more
The California Supreme Court issued its long-awaited ruling in Adolph v. Uber Technologies, Inc. on July 17, 2023, holding that an employee can pursue a non-individual representative action under the Private Attorneys General...more
On July 17, 2023, approximately one year after the U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Viking River Cruises, the California Supreme Court issued its highly-anticipated decision in Adolph v. Uber Technologies. The Court...more