News & Analysis as of

California › Employees › Appeals

Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP

Doing Nothing in Response to a Report of Sexual Harassment Could Cost You Millions – the LAPD Recently Learned the Hard Way

Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP on

If an employee complains about a sexually suggestive picture circulating in the workplace that looks like her but is not, is that a hostile work environment complaint? It might be. In Lillian Carranza v. City of Los Angeles,...more

Seyfarth Shaw LLP

PAGA Paraphrased – Osuna v. Spectrum Security Services, Inc.

Seyfarth Shaw LLP on

The Second District Court of Appeal held that, under the pre-reform PAGA statute, an individual employee need not have been employed or experienced a Labor Code violation during the one-year PAGA limitations period to have...more

Seyfarth Shaw LLP

PAGA Paraphrased – Rose v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc.

Seyfarth Shaw LLP on

The First District held that a prevailing defendant in a PAGA action may not recover litigation costs from the California Labor Workforce Development Agency when the LWDA did not participate in the litigation....more

ArentFox Schiff

A PAGA Plaintiff Must Allege a Timely Individual Claim

ArentFox Schiff on

A California Court of Appeal recently held that an employee bringing a claim under the Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) must be able to allege that he personally suffered a Labor Code violation within the applicable...more

CDF Labor Law LLP

A No-Go for Employees’ Anti-Trust Claims Based on High-End No-Hire Agreements

CDF Labor Law LLP on

Recently, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit upheld the dismissal of a class action against defendants Saks Inc., Gucci, Prada, Loro Piana, Brunello Cucinelli and other luxury good manufacturers....more

Carlton Fields

California Appellate Court Agrees Marijuana Delivery Driver’s Accident Not Covered Under Personal Auto Policy

Carlton Fields on

A California Court of Appeals decision brought one auto policyholder decidedly down from “cloud nine” in Murphy v. AAA Auto Insurance of Southern California, which found no coverage over a cannabis delivery service employee’s...more

Seyfarth Shaw LLP

Plaintiffs Are Responsible for Commencing Court-Ordered Arbitration

Seyfarth Shaw LLP on

The California Court of Appeal held that after the employer-defendant successfully moved to compel arbitration of the plaintiffs’ employment-related claims, the employer-defendant did not waive its right to arbitration by...more

K&L Gates LLP

California Court of Appeal Ends Headless PAGA Actions in Leeper v. Shipt

K&L Gates LLP on

The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, in Leeper v. Shipt, Inc., No. B339670, 2024 WL 5251619 (Cal. Ct. App. Dec. 30, 2024) (Leeper) issued a significant decision benefiting employers seeking to enforce...more

CDF Labor Law LLP

Employer Strikes Gold: California Court of Appeals Reverses Dismissal of Mining Company’s Arbitration Agreement 

CDF Labor Law LLP on

In a recent unpublished California appellate court decision, the Court unanimously reversed the lower court’s ruling that an agreement to arbitrate contained in an employee handbook was unenforceable....more

Ballard Spahr LLP

California Court of Appeal Says No More “Headless” PAGA Lawsuits

Ballard Spahr LLP on

In an effort to avoid arbitrating individual claims under the Private Attorneys General Act (“PAGA”), a recent trend emerged in California litigation involving “headless” PAGA lawsuits. Essentially, plaintiffs would expressly...more

Polsinelli

California Court of Appeal Invalidates Headless PAGA Actions

Polsinelli on

In a decision with significant impact for employers defending Private Attorney General Act (PAGA) cases, a California 2nd District Court of Appeal panel ruled on December 30, 2024, that plaintiffs cannot circumvent...more

Vorys, Sater, Seymour and Pease LLP

California Court of Appeal Leaves ‘Headless’ PAGA Claims Lifeless

Vorys, Sater, Seymour and Pease LLP on

In a significant development for California employers, the California Court of Appeal’s decision in Leeper v. Shipt, Inc. closed out 2024 by strengthening the enforceability of arbitration agreements in Private Attorneys...more

Seyfarth Shaw LLP

PAGA Paraphrased – Stone v. Alameda Health System

Seyfarth Shaw LLP on

Seyfarth Synopsis: The California Supreme Court held that PAGA does not apply to public entity employers....more

Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP

California Supreme Court Confirms the “Knowing and Intentional” Standard of California’s Wage Statement Law Requires a “Knowing...

Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP on

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

Harris Beach Murtha PLLC

California Holds Employers Have No Duty to Protect Employees’ Households from COVID-19

Harris Beach Murtha PLLC on

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

Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP

California Court of Appeal Clarifies Employer’s Obligation to Reimburse Expenses Depends on Whether They Were a Direct Consequence...

Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP on

On July 11, 2023, the California Court of Appeal in Thai v. IBM held that whether an employer is obligated to reimburse expenses incurred by an employee working from home turns on whether the expenses were a direct...more

Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP

Home Depot Files Opening Brief in California Supreme Court Case Set to Determine Validity of Time Clock Rounding

Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP on

As we wrote about previously here, in October 2022, the Sixth District of the California Court of Appeal in Camp v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., 84 Cal.App.5th 638 (2022), ignored a decade of precedent and found Home Depot’s...more

Fenwick & West LLP

Ninth Circuit Panel Rules That AB 51 Is Preempted by Federal Law and Unenforceable

Fenwick & West LLP on

On the heels of more than three years of legal challenges (summarized here) to California’s AB 51, which prohibits employers from requiring employees to arbitrate disputes under the state’s Labor Code and Fair Employment and...more

Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP

California Court of Appeal Limits the Permissibility of Time Rounding

Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP on

Rounding is the practice of capturing time entries on a time clock and converting them to the closest five, ten, or fifteen minute equivalent. For example, both entries at 8:58 and 9:04 may be converted to 9:00 a.m. A recent...more

Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP

Are You Sitting Down for This? California Court of Appeal Provides Further Guidance on Suitable Seating Claims

Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP on

The California Court of Appeal in Meda v. AutoZone, Inc. recently reversed a trial court’s finding that an employer demonstrated it “provided” seats to its employees as a matter of law under California’s suitable seating...more

Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP

California Labor Code Section 925: A Word of Caution for Out-of-State Employers of California Employees

Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP on

Employers faced with an apparent trade secret misappropriation by former employees must decide what jurisdiction to bring suit in.  For an employer headquartered outside of California who employs California residents  working...more

Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP

California Court of Appeal Makes Clear that PAGA Plaintiffs are not Entitled to a Jury Trial and Provides Helpful Guidance on...

Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP on

On February 18, 2022, the California Court of Appeal issued its decision in Jill LaFace v. Ralphs Grocery Company, __ Cal. App. 5th __ (2022), that provides important guidance in two areas. First, the Court made clear that...more

ArentFox Schiff

California Supreme Court Adopts Employee-Friendly Test for Whistleblower Retaliation Claims

ArentFox Schiff on

The California Supreme Court has held that the standard for assessing whistleblower retaliation claims under California Labor Code section 1102.5 is not the McDonnell Douglas test, but the more plaintiff-friendly standard...more

Perkins Coie

CA Supreme Court Clarifies Standard for Whistleblower Retaliation Claims Under Labor Code Section 1102.5

Perkins Coie on

The Supreme Court of California provided California employers with important clarification on the standard courts will apply when analyzing an employee’s whistleblower retaliation claim arising under Labor Code Section...more

Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP

Supreme Court Grants Review in Important Arbitration Case Regarding PAGA

Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP on

On December 15, 2021, the United States Supreme Court granted certiorari in Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana, a case which asks whether the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”) requires the enforcement of bilateral...more

26 Results
 / 
View per page
Page: of 2
Next »

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
Sign up Log in
*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
- hide
- hide