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
I have some good news for California employers seeking to enforce arbitration agreements. The California Supreme Court just held that non-payment of arbitration fees does not automatically waive the right to arbitrate....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
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
Background: The Thirty-Day Arbitration Fee Rule - In 2019, the California legislature amended the California Arbitration Act (CAA) to require the party who drafts an arbitration agreement to pay all required arbitration...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
In 2003, the California Supreme Court adopted a stringent test to determine whether an employer had waived its right to compel arbitration of an employee’s claims. The most critical, and often determinative, factor was...more
In August 2000, the California Supreme Court handed down a landmark ruling that changed the face of employment arbitration agreements going forward. That case, known as Armendariz v. Foundation Health Psychcare Services,...more
In a recent decision, the California Supreme Court held that courts cannot refuse to enforce arbitration agreements simply by finding that three or more provisions are unconscionable. Rather, courts must use a three-prong...more
On Jan. 1, new legislation aimed at curbing the use of unenforceable noncompete agreements took effect in California. The new laws, which impose potentially harsh consequences on employers for requiring employees to sign...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
For decades, California has taken arguably the most pro-employee-mobility position on noncompetition and non-solicitation agreements in the country – generally, post-employment noncompetition and non-solicitation agreements...more
Since the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Viking River Cruises v. Moriana, employers have been implementing and enforcing arbitration agreements requiring employees to arbitrate their individual Private Attorneys’ General...more
Today, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral argument in Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana, Case No. 20-1573. Wage and hour practitioners, particularly in California, have watched the case with keen interest because it...more
In 1995, the California Supreme Court held that a plaintiff pursuing a claim for interference with a prospective contractual or economic relationship had to plead that the defendant's conduct was wrongful. Della Penna v....more
Called upon by the Ninth Circuit in Ixchel Pharma, LLC v. Biogen, Inc. to answer two key questions concerning the validity of a settlement provision requiring a party’s termination of a collaboration agreement with a...more
The California Supreme Court in the 2008 case, Edwards v. Arthur Andersen LLP, ruled that a provision in an employment agreement that prevented an employee from competing with his former employer following the termination of...more
On June 8, 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court denied the employer’s petition for certiorari in OTO, LLC v. Kho. As background, in 2019, the California Supreme Court ruled in OTO that the arbitration agreement at issue was not...more
This edition of Employment Flash looks at a series of recent NLRB decisions, many of which apply to all employers, not just those with unionized employees. We also discuss other U.S. federal and state labor and...more
The California Supreme Court recently handed down an intriguing decision which casts doubt on – and in some cases even condemns – some of the most common practices used by employers in both drafting and presenting arbitration...more
In ZB, N.A. v. Superior Court of San Diego County (Lawson), the California Supreme Court held that unpaid wages are not civil penalties under California Labor Code section 558 and are therefore outside the reach of...more
Seyfarth Synopsis: The California Supreme Court has held that an individual may not seek unpaid wages under Labor Code section 558. Section 558 can be invoked only by the Labor Commissioner or by an individual suing under...more
In a significant victory for California employers who use arbitration agreements, the California Supreme Court ruled (ZB, N.A. et al. v. Superior Court of San Diego County, S246711 (September 12, 2019)) that the recovery of...more
California employers just won a major victory this week when the California Supreme Court issued its long-awaited decision in ZB, N.A. v. Superior Court. The exposure in Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) cases was...more
Yesterday September 12, 2019, the California Supreme Court held that private litigants may not recover unpaid wages under the Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act (“PAGA”). See ZB, N.A. v. Superior Court (Lawson) (Cal....more
Are you familiar with PAGA? Do you have a PAGA claim for unpaid wages filed against you right now? If yes, this recent California Supreme Court case may apply to you. (ZB, N.A. v. Superior Court)....more