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
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
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
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
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
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
The California Supreme Court issued its decision in Castellanos v. State (Castellanos) on July 25, 2024, ruling Proposition 22 (Prop 22), the initiative that allows businesses to classify drivers for app-based transportation...more
On August 15, 2024, the California Supreme Court issued a momentous unanimous decision in Stone v. Alameda Health System (“Stone”), concluding that public employers are exempt from various Labor Code provisions and PAGA...more
On July 25, 2024, the California Supreme Court unanimously ruled that Uber Technologies Inc. (“Uber”) and Lyft Inc. (“Lyft”) can continue classifying their California drivers as independent contractors....more
The California Supreme Court recently upheld a California law that classifies drivers for app-based transportation companies, such as Uber, Lyft, or DoorDash, as independent contractors and not employees, provided the company...more
On July 25, 2024, the California Supreme Court issued its long-awaited ruling in Castellanos et al., v. State of California and Protect App-Based Drivers and Services, et al., upholding the 2020 voter initiative known as...more
After years of litigation, the California Supreme Court upheld Proposition 22, a voter-approved law allowing app-based drivers to work as independent contractors. The Court rejected a challenge by a group of labor unions,...more
On July 1, 2024, California Governor Gavin Newsom signed into law a package of reforms to the Private Attorneys General Act (“PAGA”), a statute that has created headaches for employers and driven up wage and hour litigation...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
California employers can finally breathe a sigh of relief. The long-awaited and much-needed Private Attorneys General Act (“PAGA”) reform has arrived. While the reform falls well short of the ballot initiative efforts to...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
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
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, California LawCalifornia’s Supreme Court, in a rare and surprising “employer friendly” decision, held that an employer can avoid penalties under California’s wage statement law, Cal. Lab. Code § 226, if it...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
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 held that workers are entitled to compensation for time spent undergoing exit security checks that included an inspection of their personal vehicle. In the same decision, the...more
The California Supreme Court issued its decision in Huerta v. CSI Electrical Contractors, providing further guidance to employers on when employee time spent in (1) security exit procedures, (2) traveling on employer...more