In Bradsbery v. Vicar Operating, Inc., a California Court of Appeal answered a question that many California employers may not have known even needed to be answered—whether California employees can prospectively waive their...more
On January 21, 2025, the White House announced an Executive Order entitled “Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity.” The Order instructs federal agencies to take administrative and legal action...more
On January 15, 2025, the United States Supreme Court issued a rare unanimous decision clarifying the applicable standard employers must meet in cases involving exemptions under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”). In an...more
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
On March 23, 2022, in Estrada v. Royalty Carpet Mills, Inc., the California Court of Appeal for the Fourth District created a split in authority when they held that wage-and-hour lawsuits brought under California’s Private...more
2021 was another important year for California employers. From decisions by the California Supreme Court regarding employees’ rights to premium pay for missed meal and rest breaks, to legislation expanding the scope of...more
The 2020 presidential election, coupled with nationwide civil unrest and a global pandemic, is creating a lot of conversation in employees’ personal and professional lives. In a February 2020 survey, employees reported...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
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
Many classes of California workers are entitled to “reporting time pay,” which is partial compensation given to employees who go to work expecting to work a certain number of hours but are deprived of working the full time...more
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
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