And it is even more difficult still if the defendant had – and acted in accordance with – a reasonable interpretation of the vague or ambiguous statute, regulation or contract provision. A concurring opinion in a Supreme...more
On April 17, 2018, the Supreme Court decided Sessions v. Dimaya, No. 15-1498, holding in a 5-4 decision that the Immigration and Nationality Act’s definition of “crime of violence” is void for vagueness. The Immigration and...more
Companies looking to waive class action rights of employees may instead be waving goodbye to provisions in their employment contracts. Two recent decisions in California—one administrative and one in the 9th Circuit—recently...more
The Supreme Court of the United States issued one decision on April 18, 2016: - Welch v. United States, No. 15-6418: Last term, the Supreme Court, in Johnson v. United States, 576 U.S. __ (2015), held that the residual...more
Legislative Update - Governor Brown recently signed into state law the following employment law bills (among others): SB 358—Referred to as the California Fair Pay Act, this law is directed at closing the pay...more
The U.S. Supreme Court returned to familiar territory last week in DirecTV Inc. v. Imburgia (argued Oct. 6, 2015): the enforceability of an arbitration clause in a consumer contract containing a class action waiver. But...more
It is no secret that California is no friend to arbitration agreements. As the United States Supreme Court noted in its 2011 opinion in AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, “California’s courts have been more likely to hold...more
On July 30, 2014, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals invalidated a collective action waiver signed as part of a separation and release agreement. The ruling is significant because it is the first time a federal appellate...more