The California Supreme Court held that an employer must prove that it made a reasonable attempt to decipher the requirements of the law governing minimum wages in order to avail itself of the good faith defense against...more
8/26/2025
/ Appeals ,
CA Supreme Court ,
California ,
Defense Strategies ,
Employees ,
Employer Liability Issues ,
Employment Litigation ,
Good Faith ,
Labor Commissioners ,
Labor Law Violations ,
Minimum Wage ,
Paid Sick Leave ,
Paid Time Off (PTO) ,
State Labor Laws ,
Statutory Interpretation ,
Wage and Hour
The California Court of Appeal held that after the employer-defendant successfully moved to compel arbitration of the plaintiffs’ employment-related claims, the employer-defendant did not waive its right to arbitration by...more
2/25/2025
/ Appeals ,
Arbitration ,
Arbitration Agreements ,
California ,
Class Action ,
Dispute Resolution ,
Employees ,
Employment Contract ,
Employment Litigation ,
Labor Law Violations ,
Motion to Compel ,
Wage and Hour
Employees who sign an arbitration agreement with one company cannot avoid arbitration with related defendant-companies by arguing they were not parties to the agreement. The California Court of Appeal held that claims against...more
12/11/2024
/ Appeals ,
Arbitration ,
Arbitration Agreements ,
Class Action ,
Contract Terms ,
Employer Liability Issues ,
Employment Contract ,
Employment Litigation ,
Equitable Estoppel ,
Grocery Store Workers ,
Grocery Stores ,
Labor Law Violations ,
Motion to Compel ,
Non-Signatories ,
Wage and Hour
On April 12, 2024, the United States Supreme Court ruled that an individual does not need to work directly in the transportation industry to be within the scope of the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) exemption for...more
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: California Labor Code section 1102.5 protects employees who disclose what they believe to be violations of the law. The Supreme Court of California has ruled that such disclosures are protected even if the...more
5/31/2023
/ Adverse Employment Action ,
Anti-Retaliation Provisions ,
California ,
DLSE ,
Employment Litigation ,
Hiring & Firing ,
Labor Code ,
Labor Law Violations ,
Labor Standards Enforcement ,
State Labor Laws ,
Unpaid Wages ,
Whistleblower Protection Policies ,
Whistleblowers
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: An employer did not incur waiting time penalties for inadvertently misstating the amount of pay on a final paycheck, but was liable for its delay in correcting the error. And, by taking an appeal from a...more