All eyes will be on the United States this November as Americans head to the polls in the upcoming 2024 general election. Likely to go somewhat less noticed among the Presidential, Senate, and House races this year is a California ballot initiative that would repeal (after 20 long years!) the Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004—better known as PAGA. (We previously reported in

California’s minimum wage is already one of the highest in the nation at $16 per hour (although Sacramento’s efforts pale in comparison to those of cities and towns across the Golden State, which have created a patchwork quilt of over 40 different minimum wage obligations up and down the state). Now, as we have previously reported here, the rate is set to increase by

As we previously reported, California recently enacted AB 1076, which reinforces the state’s broad statutory ban on noncompete agreements.  The law took effect on January 1, 2024, and expressly codifies Edwards v. Arthur Andersen LLP, 44 Cal. 4th 937 (2008), a California Supreme Court opinion barring any noncompete, no matter how narrowly tailored it may be.  The new law also affirms

We invite you to review our newly-posted January 2024 California Employment Law Notes, a comprehensive review of the latest and most significant developments in California employment law. The highlights include:

The California Supreme Court has issued its much-anticipated decision in Estrada v. Royalty Carpet Mills, Inc., determining whether Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) claims can be dismissed as unmanageable.  The Court affirmed a lower court’s decision, holding that “trial courts lack inherent authority to strike PAGA claims on manageability grounds”—that is, trial courts may not “dismiss [them] with prejudice.”  Slip op. at 1-2.  In

A newly enacted, under-the-radar statute in California could undermine efforts by employers to challenge the expert opinion testimony regarding alleged emotional distress offered by employees at trial. 

In many if not most employment trials, the employee’s lawyer offers the expert testimony of a psychiatrist/psychologist (paid for by the plaintiff) who tells the jury about the existence and extent of the emotional distress the employee allegedly

As we wrote previously, last summer’s blockbuster decision in Adolph v. Uber Technologies, Inc., 14 Cal. 5th 1104 (2023) contained a notable silver lining.  In ruling that a Private Attorneys General Act (“PAGA”) plaintiff’s “non-individual” claims survive in court even after the “individual” claims are compelled to arbitration, the California Supreme Court strongly suggested that the non-individual claims should be stayed until the

The Los Angeles Superior Court has bestowed some remarkable gifts upon plaintiffs this holiday season. Two juries have issued gigantic verdicts in favor of individual plaintiffs in separate employment lawsuits within the past month.

On November 16, 2023, in Sosa v. Comerica Bank, a jury delivered a verdict of $14.17 million consisting of $1.17 million in lost earnings (past and future) and $13 million in emotional

To determine the minimum rate of pay or salary threshold applicable to certain exemptions from overtime regulations under California law, the Department of Industrial Relations (“DIR”) uses the California Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers (“CCPI”).  The DIR has announced the 2024 rates (effective January 1, 2024) for the computer software employee exemption and licensed physicians and surgeons exemption

For

For the second year in a row, California has avoided being “the worst in the nation,” but still managed to secure the unenviable third position on the American Tort Reform Foundation’s (“ATRF”) Annual Judicial Hellholes List.

The ATRF characterizes California as the “plaintiffs’ bar’s laboratory for finding new ways to expand liability,” highlighting several key judicial and legislative trends contributing to each Californian paying an