News & Analysis as of

California › Employment Litigation › Statutory Interpretation

Proskauer - California Employment Law

California Supreme Court Saves but Guts Anti-Arbitration Statute

Proskauer - California Employment Law on

In Hohenshelt v. Superior Court, the California Supreme Court held that California Code of Civil Procedure Section 1281.98—a do-or-die statute requiring employers to pay arbitration fees within 30 days or waive the right to...more

Husch Blackwell LLP

California Supreme Court Tackles Federal Preemption Issues in Employment and Consumer Arbitrations

Husch Blackwell LLP on

On August 11, 2025, the California Supreme Court issued a decision in the matter of Dana Hohenshelt v. The Superior Court of Los Angeles, ruling that the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”) does not preempt the California...more

Buchalter

Late Fees, High Stakes: California Narrows Arbitration Fee Forfeiture Rule

Buchalter on

In its August 11, 2025 decision in Hohenshelt v. Superior Court (S284498), the California Supreme Court clarified the reach of Code of Civil Procedure Section 1281.98, the 30-day arbitration fee payment rule. While...more

Littler

California Supreme Court Takes a Bite Out of the Rigid Application of Arbitration Fee Deadlines: Hohenshelt v. Superior Court

Littler on

Case Background - A sanitation employee at Golden State Foods Corporation, signed an arbitration agreement governed by the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) at the start of his employment. In 2020, after reporting alleged...more

Jackson Lewis P.C.

California Court of Appeal Clarifies Sick Leave Calculation for Outside Sales Employees

Jackson Lewis P.C. on

A recent California Court of Appeal decision provides clarity for employers with commissioned outside sales employees. In Hirdman v. Charter Communications, the court confirmed that employers may calculate paid sick leave for...more

Proskauer - California Employment Law

“Headless” PAGA Action May Proceed In Court

Proskauer - California Employment Law on

CRST Expedited, Inc. v. Superior Court, 2025 WL 1874891 (Cal. Ct. App. 2025) - Espiridion Sanchez filed this PAGA action against his former employer on behalf of himself and other allegedly “aggrieved employees.”...more

CDF Labor Law LLP

CA’s Fifth Appellate District Wades Into “Headless” PAGA Debate

CDF Labor Law LLP on

While we are waiting for the CA Supreme Court in Leeper v. Shipt to address whether “headless” PAGA claims (i.e., where PAGA representative plaintiffs disavow the “individual” portion of a PAGA claim) are a permissible end...more

Littler

Courts Clarify California Whistleblower Law

Littler on

Earlier this month, the Court of Appeal and the California Supreme Court provided helpful guidance on whistleblower retaliation cases. The Court of Appeal addressed who is a prevailing party entitled to fee and cost recovery...more

CDF Labor Law LLP

Whistleblower Loses Fee Award Despite Jury Finding: Court Clarifies “Successful Action” Standard Under Labor Code Section 1102.5

CDF Labor Law LLP on

Retaliation Verdict Reversed Where Plaintiff Obtained No Relief - Can an employee prove retaliation at trial yet still recover nothing – not even attorney’s fees? According to a recent decision from the California Court of...more

Seyfarth Shaw LLP

PAGA Paraphrased – CRST Expedited, Inc. v. Super. Ct.

Seyfarth Shaw LLP on

The Fifth District Court of Appeal held that under pre-reform PAGA, headless PAGA actions in which plaintiffs seek civil penalties only on behalf of other employees and not for violations they personally experienced are...more

Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP

Will the California Supreme Court Put the Heads Back on Headless PAGA Suits?

Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP on

Since our last coverage of “headless PAGA lawsuits”—i.e., lawsuits in which a plaintiff disavows his individual PAGA claim and opts to pursue the claim only on behalf of others—significant developments have further...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

Weintraub Tobin

Are Prospective Meal Period Waivers Enforceable? YES – If Done Properly

Weintraub Tobin on

California Labor Code section 512 guarantees a thirty (30) minute, off-duty, meal period for employees after five (5) work hours, and a second thirty (30) minute, off duty, meal period after ten (10) work hours. Section 512...more

CDF Labor Law LLP

California Supreme Court Clarifies Cost Shifting Under CCP Section 998

CDF Labor Law LLP on

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

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

15 Results
 / 
View per page
Page: of 1

"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