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
The California Supreme Court has clarified how the cost-shifting provisions of California Code of Civil Procedure Section 998 (“Section 998”) may apply when a case settles before trial. In a recent decision, Madrigal v....more
The California Supreme Court issued several important decisions in 2024 about issues such as the application of PAGA to public employees and the definition of “hours worked.” Several cases are pending before the state’s high...more
California law has long held that an employer’s good faith dispute over wages owed, if any, to its employees will preclude the imposition of “waiting time” penalties otherwise due following the termination of their...more
Ten is the presumptive upper limit on the number of depositions that each party may take in civil litigation in the federal courts. This number, provided by Rule 30(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, can be...more
In a welcome win for employers, the California Supreme Court recently blocked a PAGA plaintiff’s attempt to intervene and object to another PAGA plaintiff’s proposed settlement as a matter of right, in Turrieta v. Lyft, Inc.,...more
The California Supreme Court just ruled that public employers are not subject to civil penalties under the state’s Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (PAGA). In a pivotal decision, the court held that public entities,...more
The California Supreme Court just held that a plaintiff in one PAGA action does not have the right to intervene or object to a judgment in a similar action even if a settlement or other resolution in that similar case results...more
On August 1, 2024, in Turrieta v. Lyft et al., the California Supreme Court held that a plaintiff in a Private Attorneys General Act (“PAGA”) action does not have a right to intervene -- or to object to or vacate a judgment...more
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
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
Meagan Bainbridge and Lukas Clary from Weintraub Tobin's Labor and Employment Group dive into the California Supreme Court case Huerta vs. CSI Electrical Contractors. Discover the key takeaways for employers on compensable...more
On March 25, 2024, the California Supreme Court issued its decision in Huerta v. CSI Electrical Contractors. This ruling provides important guidance as to what does and does not constitute sufficient employer control to make...more
The California Supreme Court recently issued its opinion in Naranjo v. Spectrum Security Services Inc., resolving a split of authority in California state and federal courts whether there is a “good faith” defense to claims...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
On May 7, 2024, the California Supreme Court resolved a lower court split over the meaning of a “knowing and intentional failure to comply” under California Labor Code Section 226, which dictates requirements for providing...more
In a favorable ruling for employers defending against wage statement compliance claims, the California Supreme Court in Naranjo v. Spectrum Services Inc. (Naranjo) settled an age-old dispute by determining that an employer...more
On May 6, 2024, the Supreme Court of California held that when an employer “reasonably and in good faith” believes it complied with California’s legal requirement to provide accurate wage statements and it does not, the...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
This week, the California Supreme Court filed a decision in Naranjo v. Spectrum Security Services, Inc., S279397, holding that “an employer’s objectively reasonable, good faith belief that it has provided employees with...more
In a rare victory for employers, the California Supreme Court unanimously held in Naranjo v. Spectrum Sec. Serv., Inc., S279397 (Decided 6 May 2024) that an employer’s “objectively reasonable, good faith belief” that it has...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