The Current State of the Holder Rule: Friend or Foe? — Moving the Metal: The Auto Finance Podcast
Recent Developments in California's Arbitration Landscape — FCRA Focus Podcast
Lemon Law Shakeup: Rodriguez vs. FCA US Has Unexpected Result – Moving The Metal Podcast
California Employment News: Can Pre- and Post-Shift Activities Be Compensated (Podcast)
California Employment News: Can Pre- and Post-Shift Activities Be Compensated
This Am Law 50 senior counsel cements his authority through two appellate analytics blogs - Legally Contented Podcast
California Employment News: Premium Pay Constitutes Wages
#WorkforceWednesday: CA Whistleblower Retaliation Cases, NYC Pay Transparency Law, Biden’s Labor Agenda - Employment Law This Week®
AGG Talks: Background Screening - Redaction of Identifiers by the Courts Update, Breaking News from California
AGG Talks: Background Screening - Redaction of Identifiers by the Courts in Michigan and California Pose Challenges for Background Checks
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
We have seen a rise in employees going on the offensive and suing their former employers for damages for not informing them that their noncompete is invalid under the applicable state law or for exaggerating the scope of a...more
Following the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana (2022) U.S. 639 and the California Supreme Court’s decision in Adolph v. Uber Technologies, Inc. (2023) 14 Cal. 5th 1104, when...more
Seyfarth Synopsis: The California Supreme Court held that PAGA does not apply to public entity employers....more
CDF Wage and Hour Task Force – Monthly Updates and Tips - On Thursday, the California Supreme Court issued its much-anticipated decision in the matter of Turrieta v. Lyft, Inc.....more
Many California employers require their employees to sign agreements to submit any disputes arising out their employment to binding arbitration. If an employee files a lawsuit in court, the employer then has the option of...more
Aggrieved employee is any person who was employed by the alleged violator and against whom one or more of the alleged violations was committed. An “aggrieved employee” is any person who was employed by the alleged violator...more
In Naranjo v. Spectrum Security Services, the case’s second appearance before the California Supreme Court in two years, the Supreme Court confirmed that an employer does not incur civil penalties for failing to report unpaid...more
At Meyers Nave, we prioritize assisting our clients in establishing and maintaining wage and hour policies that comply with legal standards. This includes implementing effective systems and processes to ensure all levels of...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
On March 25, 2024, the California Supreme Court issued a highly anticipated decision in Huerta v. CSI Electrical Contractors, Inc. The Court responded to the request from the Ninth Circuit to answer three questions about Wage...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
On Monday, the California Supreme Court issued its opinion in Huerta v. CSI Electrical Contractors Inc., answering three questions about the scope of the term “hours worked” in Wage Order No. 16. While Wage Order No.16...more
On January 18, 2024, the California Supreme Court made a significant ruling in the case of Estrada v. Royalty Carpet Mills, Inc., finding that the trial court lacked the inherent authority to dismiss a California’s Private...more
In Estrada v. Royalty Carpet Mills, Inc., the California Supreme Court jump-started 2024 with a boon to employees, ending trial courts’ inherent authority to dismiss unmanageable claims under the Private Attorneys’ General...more
California’s Private Attorneys’ General Act, or PAGA, just celebrated its 20th birthday despite repeated, failed attempts at its repeal. California’s Labor Code is among the strictest in the nation and California law affords...more
California law has for many years treated agreements that restrain one from engaging in a lawful profession, trade, or business as void and unenforceable, unless an exception applies. This applies to most non-compete and...more
On January 18th, the California Supreme Court in Estrada v. Royalty Carpet Mills, Inc. ruled that defendants sued under the Private Attorney General Act (PAGA) may no longer strike unmanageable claims. PAGA claims are...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
Recently, the California Supreme Court ruled in The People ex rel. Lilia Garcia-Brower v. Kolla’s Inc. that California’s whistleblower protection statute (Labor Code § 1102.5) protects employees who disclose unlawful conduct,...more
On July 17, 2023, the California Supreme Court issued its decision in Adolph v. Uber Technologies, Inc. With this decision California employers need to understand that plaintiffs do not lose standing when individual...more
California’s Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) authorizes current and former employees to bring a representative action for civil penalties on behalf of the state against an employer for Labor Code violations committed...more
Ruling on a lingering legal issue from the COVID-19 pandemic, the California Supreme Court held that an employer is not liable for cases of “take-home” COVID-19 — that is, where a household member allegedly caught the virus...more
The California Supreme Court has answered in the negative the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals’ certified question regarding “take-home” COVID-19 exposure (see Federal Appeals Court Asks California If Covid-19 “Take Home” Suits...more