On January 18, 2024, the California Supreme Court issued its long-awaited opinion in Estrada v. Royalty Carpet Mills to decide the question of whether California trial courts have inherent authority to strike claims brought...more
With its decision in Adolph v. Uber Technologies, Inc. (“Adolph”) the California Supreme Court has reignited the debate surrounding arbitration agreements containing waivers of an employee’s right to bring a representative...more
On May 23, 2022, the California Supreme Court issued its highly anticipated ruling in Naranjo v. Spectrum Security Services and decided two critical questions: first, whether an employee is entitled to “waiting time...more
The California Supreme Court’s 2011 decision in Sullivan v. Oracle Corp. (“Sullivan”) and its more recent decisions in Ward v. United Airlines (“Ward”) and Oman v. Delta Air Lines, Inc. (“Oman”) provided employers with a...more
Last year, California Governor Gavin Newsom signed Assembly Bill (“AB”) 5, which signaled a seismic shift in the way California employers classify workers as either independent contractors or employees. On September 4, 2020,...more
In Amanda Frlekin v. Apple Inc., No. S243805 (Feb. 13, 2020), the California Supreme Court responded to a request by the United States Court of Appeal for the Ninth Circuit to answer the following question...more
From the California Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Dynamex to the passage of dozens of new employment laws, 2019 was an important year for California employers. While some of these new laws were discussed here, this...more
1/8/2020
/ ABC Test ,
Arbitration Agreements ,
CA Supreme Court ,
Dynamex ,
Employee Definition ,
Employer Liability Issues ,
Employment Policies ,
Hiring & Firing ,
Independent Contractors ,
Labor Code ,
Labor Regulations ,
Lactation Accommodation ,
State Labor Laws ,
Wage and Hour
On September 18, 2019, California Governor Gavin Newsom signed Assembly Bill (“AB”) 5, thereby codifying the California Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. Lee. This represents the...more
9/24/2019
/ ABC Test ,
CA Supreme Court ,
Dynamex ,
Employee Definition ,
Employer Liability Issues ,
Exemptions ,
Gig Economy ,
Governor Newsom ,
Independent Contractors ,
Joint Employers ,
Misclassification ,
Retroactive Application ,
State Labor Laws ,
Wage Orders
Prior to the California Supreme Court’s decision in Wilson vs. Cable News Network, Inc., California Courts of Appeal were split on whether California’s anti-SLAPP statute applied to an employee’s claims of discrimination and...more
With its decision last year in Dynamex, the California Supreme Court fundamentally changed the test for determining whether workers are properly classified as either employees or independent contractors. Specifically, and as...more
6/7/2019
/ ABC Test ,
CA Supreme Court ,
Employee Definition ,
Employer Liability Issues ,
Gig Economy ,
Hiring & Firing ,
Independent Contractors ,
Misclassification ,
Risk Assessment ,
State and Local Government ,
State Labor Laws ,
Wage and Hour
Almost six months ago, the California Supreme Court issued its decision in Dynamex, which dramatically altered the landscape pertaining to the classification of California workers as either employees or independent...more
In Connor v. First Student, Inc., the California Supreme Court resolved a conflict in Court of Appeal decisions relating to the constitutionality of California’s background check laws....more
In Troester v. Starbucks Corp., the California Supreme Court determined that the federal de minimis doctrine does not apply to California wage claims. While this ruling does not completely eviscerate this legal defense for...more
7/30/2018
/ CA Supreme Court ,
Civil Code ,
De Minimis Claims ,
Employer Liability Issues ,
Employment Litigation ,
Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) ,
Labor Code ,
Putative Class Actions ,
Starbucks ,
Timekeeping ,
Wage and Hour
For almost 30 years, California courts have primarily used a subjective, multi-factor test in determining whether a worker was properly classified as an employee or independent contractor. In March of this year, the...more
In Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. Lee, the California Supreme Court created a new employee-friendly test for determining whether workers are properly classified as employees or independent contractors. While providing a...more
5/2/2018
/ ABC Test ,
CA Supreme Court ,
Delivery Drivers ,
Employee Definition ,
Employer Liability Issues ,
Employment Litigation ,
Gig Economy ,
Independent Contractors ,
Misclassification ,
State Labor Laws ,
Wage and Hour
In Alvarado v. Dart Container Corporation of California, the California Supreme Court determined how employers must calculate an employee’s overtime pay rate when the employee earns a bonus during a single pay period. While...more
In Mendoza v. Nordstrom, the California Supreme Court answered three questions from the Ninth Circuit concerning California’s “day of rest” statutes. The Court’s decision clarifies a significant ambiguity for employers...more
In Jennifer Augustus v. ABM Security Services, Inc., the California Supreme Court determined that employers are prohibited from implementing “on-call” rest breaks. This holding led the Supreme Court to reinstate an...more