Seyfarth Synopsis: The California Supreme Court ruled that an isolated, one-time, use of a racial slur may be so severe—when viewed in relation to the totality of the circumstances—as to alter the conditions of employment,...more
Seyfarth Synopsis:
The California Supreme Court reaffirmed that arbitration agreements are on equal footing with other types of contracts. Therefore, a court should apply the same principles that apply to other contracts...more
The California Supreme Court concluded that the “good faith” defense applies to claims seeking to impose penalties under California Labor Code section 226. An employee must show that an employer’s failure to comply with...more
5/8/2024
/ CA Supreme Court ,
Employees ,
Employer Liability Issues ,
Employment Litigation ,
Good Faith ,
Labor Code ,
Putative Class Actions ,
Rest and Meal Break ,
State Labor Laws ,
Unpaid Wages ,
Wage and Hour ,
Wage Orders
On March 25, 2024, the California Supreme Court unanimously answered three questions regarding the meaning of "hours worked” that had been certified to it by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal. This ruling illuminates what...more
Seyfarth Synopsis: On January 18, 2024, in Estrada v. Royalty Carpet Mills, Inc., the California Supreme Court addressed the split in appellate authority as to whether trial courts have inherent authority to strike a PAGA...more
Seyfarth Synopsis: In a case of first impression, the California Supreme Court decided FEHA claims can be litigated directly against certain agents of an employer. Raines v. U.S. Healthworks Medical Group....more
Seyfarth Synopsis: The California Supreme Court unanimously held that while claims brought by an employee’s spouse for COVID injury are not barred by the Workers’ Compensation Act’s (WCA) exclusivity provision, policy...more
Seyfarth Synopsis: The California Supreme Court recently determined that meal and rest period premium payments are subject to the final pay timing requirements of Labor Code section 203 and the wage statement reporting...more
Seyfarth Synopsis: The California Supreme Court recently determined that meal and rest period premium payments are subject to the final pay timing requirements of Labor Code section 203 and the wage statement reporting...more
Seyfarth Synopsis: The California Supreme Court held that the Labor Management Relations Act does not preempt claims under the Labor Code where a defense requires little more than referring to a collective bargaining...more
5/1/2019
/ Appeals ,
Arbitration ,
CA Supreme Court ,
Collective Bargaining Agreements (CBA) ,
Contract Interpretation ,
Employment Litigation ,
Hiring & Firing ,
Labor Code ,
Labor-Managment Relations Act ,
Motion to Compel ,
Preemption ,
Reversal ,
Section 201 ,
Section 301 ,
Trial Court Orders ,
Unions ,
Unpaid Wages ,
Wage and Hour
Seyfarth Synopsis: The Court of Appeal decision that held that employers may use the federal formula for calculating overtime on a flat sum bonus is no longer citable precedent as the California Supreme Court has granted...more