Nationwide FLSA Lawsuits Just Got Harder—Here’s Why - #WorkforceWednesday® - Employment Law This Week®
The Labor Law Insider: How Arbitrations Help Preserve Labor-Management Peace, Part I
Consumer Finance Monitor Podcast Episode: “Accidental Arbitration” -- A New Theory that Would Rein in Consumer Arbitration Clauses and the Scope of the FAA
#WorkforceWednesday®: PAGA in California, NLRB Authority, New Employment Laws in 2025 - Employment Law This Week®
Recent Developments in California's Arbitration Landscape — FCRA Focus Podcast
Dogecoin’s Day in Court
#WorkforceWednesday® - Key SCOTUS Decisions This Term for Employers - Employment Law This Week®
AGG Talks: Cross-Border Business Podcast - Episode 14: Resolving Cross-Border Conflicts Through International Arbitration
Consumer Finance Monitor Podcast Episode: A Discussion of Industry and Consumer Perspectives on Mass Arbitration
Navigating Mass Arbitration: New Rules and Strategies — The Consumer Finance Podcast
#WorkforceWednesday: Avoiding Legal Illusions - Crafting Effective Arbitration Agreements - Employment Law This Week®
Consumer Finance Monitor Podcast Episode: A Look at a New Approach to Consumer Contracts
Do You Need an Arbitration Clause in Your Energy Contract? Pros and Cons
Consumer Finance Monitor Podcast Episode: Reasons Why the CFPB Should Deny the Petition for Rulemaking on Post-Dispute Consumer Arbitration Agreements
Consumer Finance Monitor Podcast Episode: A Deep Dive into Mass Arbitration, with Special Guest Andrew Pincus, Partner, Mayer Brown
#WorkforceWednesday: SCOTUS Rules on PAGA, Fifth Circuit Rules on COVID-19 Under WARN, Illinois Expands Bereavement Leave - Employment Law This Week®
California Employment News: US Supreme Court “Viking River” Decision Brings PAGA Relief for CA Employers
Employment Law Now VI-116-Top 10 Employment Issues To Consider For The Summer Kick-Off
3 Key Takeaways | Drafting & Navigating Dispute Resolution Clauses
#WorkforceWednesday: EEOC COVID-19 Charges Surge, NYC’s Pay Transparency Law, SCOTUS Considers PAGA - Employment Law This Week®
After years of appellate cases and several rulings holding California employers to the very strict payment standards of the California Arbitration Act (CAA), the California Supreme Court has, for the first time, addressed...more
The California Supreme Court recently issued a significant decision in Hohenshelt v. Superior Court, holding that the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) does not preempt California laws requiring businesses to pay consumer or...more
On August 11, 2025, the California Supreme Court issued a decision in the matter of Dana Hohenshelt v. The Superior Court of Los Angeles, ruling that the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”) does not preempt the California...more
On August 11, 2025, the Supreme Court of California ruled that the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) does not preempt a state statute requiring employers to timely pay arbitration fees or forfeit the right to arbitration. The...more
In a highly anticipated decision, the California Supreme Court in Dana Hohenshelt v. Golden State Foods Corp. relieves some pressure for employers, holding that late payment of arbitration fees does not result in an automatic...more
The California Supreme Court recently held in Hohenshelt v. Superior Court that the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) does not preempt a California law that penalizes businesses that have consumer and employee arbitration...more
On Aug. 11, 2025, in Hohenshelt v. Superior Court, the California Supreme Court held that the Federal Arbitration Act does not preempt California Code of Civil Procedure Section 1281.98. The statute, intended to deter the...more
The use of arbitration clauses in employment and consumer-related contracts is ubiquitous. California law requires companies facing employment and consumer claims in arbitration to pay arbitration fees and costs within 30...more
The California Supreme Court issued its decision in Hohenshelt v. Superior Court, addressing whether the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) preempts California's rule governing late payment of arbitration fees, Cal. Code Civ....more
The Supreme Court of California is set to decide whether the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) preempts a California statute that requires employers to forfeit the right to arbitrate disputes with employees if arbitration fees...more
California is famously inhospitable to arbitration. In fact, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down California laws disfavoring arbitration on no fewer than six occasions between 1987 and 2022....more
Last year, the U.S. Supreme Court issued an employer-friendly decision in Viking River Cruises v. Moriana. There, it held that the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) preempts the California Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA)...more
On July 17, the California Supreme Court issued its decision in Adolph v. Uber Technologies, Inc. (Cal. Sup. Ct. Case No. S274671), in which it addressed whether a plaintiff who is compelled to arbitrate their individual...more
In the landmark case of Iskanian v. CLS Transportation Los Angeles, LLC, 59 Cal. 4th 348 (2014), the California Supreme Court held that an arbitration agreement purporting to waive the right to bring a representative action...more
The inclusion in arbitration clauses of a waiver of public injunctive relief has gained popularity generally, but such a waiver is currently unenforceable in California. However, California’s controversial precedent on the...more
Seyfarth Synopsis: The California Supreme Court invalidated an employment arbitration agreement on August 29, 2019. At issue in OTO, LLC v. Kho was an agreement to arbitrate employment claims, including wage claims. Under the...more
The U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion, 563 U.S. 333 (2011) caused a shockwave in California’s class action bar when it held that the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”) preempted California’s former...more
On April 6, the California Supreme Court issued a unanimous opinion in McGill v. Citibank, finding that a pre-dispute arbitration agreement was unenforceable to the extent it required the plaintiff to waive her right to seek...more
“Agreements to arbitrate claims for public injunctive relief under [California’s Consumers Legal Remedy Act or Unfair Competition Law], or the false advertising law are not enforceable in California.” The California Supreme...more
In an April 5, 2017 unanimous opinion, the California Supreme Court (the “Court”) held that private arbitration agreements which prohibit public injunctive relief in any forum are contrary to California public policy and...more
In a closely-watched case, the California Supreme Court recently held in McGill v. Citibank, N.A. that arbitration clauses that foreclose a plaintiff’s right to pursue public injunctive relief in any forum are invalid and...more
Seyfarth Synopsis: No California contractual provision, including one in an arbitration agreement, can waive the statutory right to seek injunctive relief to protect the general public. McGill v. Citibank, N.A. (April 6,...more
On Thursday, April 7, 2017, in McGill v. Citibank, the California Supreme Court held that a pre-dispute arbitration agreement that waives the right to seek public injunctive relief is contrary to public policy and thus...more
The Ninth Circuit Decision - Delivering a perhaps unexpected blow to employers, the Ninth Circuit sided with the California Supreme Court earlier this week in upholding the state-court-fashioned Iskanian rule, which...more
On September 28, 2015, the Ninth Circuit held in Shukri Sakkab v. Luxottica Retail North America, Inc. that the FAA does not preempt the rule that the California Supreme Court enunciated in Iskanian v. CLS Transportation that...more