The effective date of California’s Senate Bill 553 is fast approaching, and the law covers nearly every employer and every employment facility in California with the exception of healthcare facilities and other facilities...more
As our team has previously reported, California currently requires private employers with 100 or more employees, and who are required to file an annual EEO-1 report, to submit certain employee pay data to the state’s Civil...more
Last week, the United States Supreme Court issued its long-awaited decision in Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana (US 20–1573 6/15/22) (“Moriana”). The singular question presented to the Court was whether the Federal...more
Caroline Powell Donelan and Howard M. Knee California is infamous for its hostility towards employers. On May 23, the California Supreme Court continued on its unwavering mission to solidify that well-earned reputation by...more
On December 15, the U.S. Supreme Court changed course and announced that it would decide whether representative claims brought under California’s Private Attorneys General Act (known as “PAGA”) can be waived by an otherwise...more
As a reminder, California’s new pay data reporting for employers with 100 or more employees (and at least one employee in California) is due on or by March 31, 2021. California’s Department of Fair Employment and Housing...more
If you have googled “California” and/or “COVID‑19” this week, you undoubtedly know that many Golden State counties are again on the verge of shutdown as the state has now passed one million COVID‑19 cases. You also likely...more
On or by March 31, 2021, (and each March 31 thereafter), private employers in California with more than 100 full-time and part-time employees that are required to file employer information reports with the federal government...more
The hopes of California gig economy companies to retain the flexibility to classify workers as independent contractors were dashed this week when a federal district court judge refused to enjoin Assembly Bill 5 (“AB5”), which...more
UPDATE: Today, a federal court preliminarily enjoined the enforcement of AB-51 (California’s anti-arbitration law discussed here, here, and here) as it relates to arbitration agreements governed by the Federal Arbitration...more
UPDATE: On December 29, 2019, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California issued an order temporarily enjoining the enforcement of AB 51 pending resolution of plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary...more
California Governor Gavin Newsom went on a bill-signing frenzy earlier this month, enacting 17 new bills into law. Below, we highlight the “Big Five” which will have a certain and critical impact on any business with workers...more
Just last year, the California Supreme Court in Dynamex Operations West v. Superior Court (2018) 4 Cal. 5th 903 (“Dynamex”) abruptly replaced the longstanding test in California for determining whether a worker is an...more
While talking heads focused on the debates heating up in Houston last week, the California Supreme Court on Thursday put an end to a nearly five-year debate regarding the permissible scope of recovery and arbitrability under...more
On April 24, 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its 5–4 opinion in Lamps Plus, Inc., et al. v. Varela holding that class arbitration is only allowed when the parties’ agreement explicitly allows for it. In other words, when...more
5/17/2019
/ Ambiguous ,
Appeals ,
Arbitration ,
Arbitration Agreements ,
Class Arbitration ,
Consent ,
Federal Arbitration Act ,
Federal v State Law Application ,
Lamps Plus Inc v Varela ,
Motion to Compel ,
Preemption ,
SCOTUS
Last week, in a significant blow to claims that gig economy workers are entitled to pursue disputes on a class or collective basis, and possibly whether those workers will be able to establish that they are employees and not...more
On July 26, 2018, the California Supreme Court issued its long-awaited opinion in Troester v. Starbucks Corp., __ P.3d __ (2018). In the days that have followed, legal headlines have lamented the presumed “death” of the de...more
8/2/2018
/ CA Supreme Court ,
De Minimis Claims ,
Employer Liability Issues ,
Employment Litigation ,
Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) ,
Federal Labor Laws ,
Federal v State Law Application ,
Labor Code ,
Labor Law Violations ,
Starbucks ,
State Labor Laws ,
Timekeeping ,
Unpaid Wages ,
Wage and Hour
The Supreme Court issued a landmark decision on May 21, 2018, which has widespread implications for all employers. In Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis, a 5-4 opinion written by Justice Gorsuch, the Supreme Court held that...more
5/22/2018
/ Arbitration ,
Arbitration Agreements ,
Class Action Arbitration Waivers ,
Epic Systems Corp v Lewis ,
Ernst & Young v Morris ,
Federal Arbitration Act ,
Murphy Oil v NLRB ,
NLRA ,
NLRB ,
SCOTUS ,
Section 7
California employers are facing a harsh new reality as a result of the state Supreme Court’s recent decision adopting a new test for determining whether a worker can properly be classified as an independent contractor (versus...more
Action Item: On June 2, 2016, Mayor Garcetti signed Los Angeles’ new Minimum Wage Ordinance (“the Los Angeles Ordinance”), which effectively affords employees who work in the City of Los Angeles twice the amount of paid sick...more