The California Court of Appeal dealt another blow to arbitration, just months after we reported the last such decision here.

This time, the Court ruled that the federal Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act (“EFAA”) overrides state law—even in cases in which the employee has signed an arbitration agreement that explicitly invokes state law favoring arbitration.

Kristin Casey, a former

On April 7, 2025, the California Court of Appeal reversed a whopping $10 million verdict in favor of an employee in a sexual harassment case due to the trial judge’s improper evidentiary rulings and inappropriate comments during the post-judgment phase of trial. Odom v. Los Angeles Cmty. Coll. Dist., No. B327997, 2025 WL 1021951, at *1 (Cal. Ct. App. Apr. 7, 2025).

Sabrena Odom

As we have reported time and again, California courts have applied extra scrutiny to employee arbitration agreements in recent years, and have not hesitated to deny arbitration where there is a reasonable basis for doing so.  This trend demands that employers be vigilant and update arbitration agreements when developments in the law implicate them.  In the recent case of Ford v. The Silver F,

Although the threat of COVID-19 (remember that?) seems to have diminished considerably over the past five years, once upon a time in Hollywood many production companies (along with other employers) required employees to be vaccinated upon pain of losing their job.

In early 2022, Apple Studios LLC conditionally offered actor Brent Sexton the role of U.S. President Andrew Johnson in its production of Manhunt

On February 26, 2025, in Parra Rodriguez v. Packers Sanitation, Inc., the California Court of Appeal (Fourth Appellate District) issued the latest published decision addressing the practice of filing so-called “headless” Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) claims.  In such cases, the plaintiff seeks civil penalties for all allegedly aggrieved employees except themself.  In the wake of Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana, 596

In late 2023, California supersized the minimum wage for fast food workers by a whopping 25 percent (increasing it from $16 to $20). This law was opposed by the fast food industry, while labor unions (and their many friends and admirers in Sacramento) insisted it would “benefit workers.”

Well, the results are in.  According to a new study released by the Berkeley Research Group, the

The California Court of Appeal recently reminded employers in an unpublished (but nonetheless chastening) opinion of the importance of carefully drafting arbitration agreements. In Pich v. LaserAway, LLC et al, the court affirmed the trial court’s denial of the employer’s motion to compel a former employee’s representative wage-and-hour suit to arbitration because the arbitration agreement in question was signed only by the employee—not the employer.