Consumer Finance Monitor Podcast Episode: “Accidental Arbitration” -- A New Theory that Would Rein in Consumer Arbitration Clauses and the Scope of the FAA
Consumer Finance Monitor Podcast Episode: A Discussion of Industry and Consumer Perspectives on Mass Arbitration
California Employment News: The State of Mandatory Arbitration Agreements in California Employment
Podcast: California Employment News - The State of Mandatory Arbitration Agreements in California Employment
#WorkforceWednesday: NLRB Focuses on Severance Agreements, Supreme Court Opens Overtime to HCEs, Ninth Circuit Rejects CA's Mandatory Arbitration Ban - Employment Law This Week®
#WorkforceWednesday: SCOTUS Rules on PAGA, Fifth Circuit Rules on COVID-19 Under WARN, Illinois Expands Bereavement Leave - Employment Law This Week®
California Employment News: US Supreme Court “Viking River” Decision Brings PAGA Relief for CA Employers
#WorkforceWednesday: EEOC COVID-19 Charges Surge, NYC’s Pay Transparency Law, SCOTUS Considers PAGA - Employment Law This Week®
#WorkforceWednesday: New Law on Arbitration of Sexual Harassment Claims, Cyber War Ramps Up, Salaried Nonexempt Status - Employment Law This Week®
Employment Law Now VI-114-Banning Arbitration of Sexual Harassment/Assault Claims
Update and Discussion on Legal and Practical Issues
DE Under 3: OFCCP Contractor Portal & Request for Comments for Functional Affirmative Action Programs (FAAPs)
Employment Law This Week®: FAA Arguably Preempts California Law, New CA Employment Laws for 2020, CA Consumer Privacy Act Amended
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
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
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
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
The California Supreme Court ruled that the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) does not preempt the California Arbitration Act (CAA) provisions that require the drafter of the arbitration agreement to pay all arbitration invoices...more
The use of arbitration clauses in employment and consumer-related contracts is ubiquitous. California law requires companies facing employment and consumer claims in arbitration to pay arbitration fees and costs within 30...more
The California Supreme Court issued its decision in Hohenshelt v. Superior Court, addressing whether the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) preempts California's rule governing late payment of arbitration fees, Cal. Code Civ....more
California Senate Bill No. 940, which became effective January 1, 2025, places significant restrictions on arbitration provisions affecting California consumers. Under the law, consumers may void contractual provisions that...more
In the long-awaited newest chapter of case law discussing the validity and enforceability of arbitration clauses and class action waivers, the Ninth Circuit on October 28, 2024, dealt a setback, though not a fatal blow, to...more
On October 26, 2022, the New Jersey Appellate Division in Rourke v. Herr Foods, Inc. once again confirmed that the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) preempts the 2019 amendment to the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (NJLAD)...more
Seyfarth Synopsis: Among other things, AB 51 makes it unlawful for employers to impose arbitration agreements on employees as a condition of employment, even if employees are permitted to opt out. AB 51 was quickly challenged...more
On February 7, 2020, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California issued an order supporting its injunction of Assembly Bill 51 (AB 51), an expansive anti-arbitration law enacted in October, which was...more
Seyfarth Synopsis: After granting a temporary restraining order days before AB 51 was to go into effect, the Eastern District of California granted a motion for a preliminary injunction on January 31, 2020. An order detailing...more
A federal judge issued a temporary restraining order on Monday, December 30, to halt enforcement of California’s Assembly Bill 51 (AB 51), which was scheduled to go into effect on January 1, 2020. AB 51 would have prevented...more
On December 30, 2019, a federal judge in the Eastern District of California entered an order temporarily halting the enforcement of AB 51, California’s new anti-mandatory arbitration law. AB 51, which was set to go into...more
On October 10, 2019, California Governor Newsom signed a bill seeking to ban employers from requiring employees or applicants to sign arbitration agreements waiving their rights under the Labor Code or the state’s...more
We recently wrote about a new California law set to go into effect on January 1, 2020 that would outlaw mandatory arbitration agreements with employees....more
A federal court in California has prevented, at least for now, an expansive anti-arbitration law from taking effect on January 1, 2020. Under Assembly Bill (AB) 51, enacted on October 10, 2019, employers cannot require...more
If your business operates in California, you need to be aware of AB 51, a law that will take effect January 1, 2020. AB 51 precludes employers from requiring any applicant or employee, as a condition of employment, continued...more
On November 26, 2019, San Francisco Superior Court Judge Richard B. Ulmer ruled that the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”) might not apply to Uber drivers who are engaged in interstate commerce while driving passengers to or...more
As employers with operations in California had feared, Governor Gavin Newsom has signed AB 51, which effectively outlaws mandatory arbitration agreements with employees – a new version of a bill that prior Governor Jerry...more
Seyfarth Synopsis. On Thursday, September 5, 2019, the Legislature passed AB 51. This bill would ban mandatory arbitration agreements with respect to claims under the Labor Code and the Fair Employment and Housing Act while...more
On June 28, 2019, the Ninth Circuit held in three separate cases that the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) does not preempt the California Supreme Court’s holding in McGill v. Citibank, N.A., 2 Cal.5th 945 (2017) — otherwise...more
We have good news from the U.S. Supreme Court for creditors who use arbitration agreements. On April 24, 2019, in Lamps Plus v. Varela, the Supreme Court held in a 5-4 decision that courts may no longer infer from an...more
On September 27, 2018, the Kentucky Supreme Court in Northern Kentucky Area Development District v. Snyder held that the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) does not preempt a Kentucky statute, KRS § 336.070(2), barring employers...more