Demystifying Wage and Hour Audits: One-on-One with Courtney McFate
New FLSA Notice Standard, DOL’s PAID Program, Axed Wage and Hour Penalties - #WorkforceWednesday® - Employment Law This Week®
Nationwide FLSA Lawsuits Just Got Harder—Here’s Why - #WorkforceWednesday® - Employment Law This Week®
Non-Disparagement Tips for Employers
Judge Xavier Rodriguez on Possession, Custody, or Control from the Meet and Confer Podcast
The Journey of Litigation
The Labor Law Insider: How Arbitrations Help Preserve Labor-Management Peace, Part I
Master the First Moves in Litigation for Courtroom Advantage – Speaking of Litigation Video Podcast
Workplace Risks Meet Holistic Legal Solutions: One-on-One with Adam Tomiak
The Labor Law Insider: NLRB Does a U-Turn on Make-Whole Settlement Remedies, Part II
Podcast - How Do You Define Success?
Hiring Smarter: Best Practices for Interviews: What's the Tea in L&E?
The Labor Law Insider: NLRB Does a U-Turn on Make-Whole Settlement Remedies, Part I
Handling References and Referrals While Safeguarding Your Business
PODCAST: Williams Mullen's Benefits Companion - Forfeitures Under Fire
Your Guide to Dealing with Subpoenas Effectively
Navigating the Maze: eDiscovery Essentials for Employers — Hiring to Firing Podcast
Podcast - The Law as a Force for Change
Trade Secrets on Trial: Strategic Decisions for the Courtroom - Employment Law This Week® - Spilling Secrets Podcast
The Changing Landscape of EEOC Enforcement and Disparate Impact
On 11 August 2025, California employers scored some relief from a rigidly applied arbitration statute with the California Supreme Court’s highly anticipated decision in Hohenshelt v. Superior Court (Hohenshelt)....more
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
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
In a highly anticipated decision, the California Supreme Court in Dana Hohenshelt v. Golden State Foods Corp. relieves some pressure for employers, holding that late payment of arbitration fees does not result in an automatic...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
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
The Supreme Court of California is set to decide whether the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) preempts a California statute that requires employers to forfeit the right to arbitrate disputes with employees if arbitration fees...more
In our previous article, “Pay Up or Lawsuit Up: The 30-Day Countdown That’s Fueling Arbitration Disputes,” we explored the legal and practical challenges posed by California’s 30-day arbitration fee payment rule, codified in...more
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
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
Less than a year ago, the California Supreme Court in Ramirez v. Charter Communications, Inc. opined, in the context of employment arbitration agreements, that there is no bright line rule that requires a court to refuse...more
Following the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana (2022) U.S. 639 and the California Supreme Court’s decision in Adolph v. Uber Technologies, Inc. (2023) 14 Cal. 5th 1104, when...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
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
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
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
Seyfarth Synopsis: The California Supreme Court held that PAGA does not apply to public entity employers....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
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
In a long-awaited decision, the California Supreme Court resolved a split in appellate authority in Turrieta v. Lyft, Inc., holding that a plaintiff who files a claim under the state's Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA)...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