It’s official: The California Supreme Court will hear oral argument in Leeper v. Shipt, Inc. on Tuesday, November 3, 2026. The Court’s newly released calendar lists Leeper as the second case in its 9:00 a.m. session in San Francisco.
As we’ve previously discussed here, here, and here, Leeper concerns so-called “headless” PAGA claims. Christina Leeper alleged that Shipt misclassified workers as independent
Fall has arrived, and Sacramento once again has supplied California employers with something scarier than Halloween ghouls: another round of workplace legislation. This year’s harvest includes restrictions on artificial intelligence, expanded leave rights, and steeper penalties. There is even a temporary reprieve from last year’s “stay-or-pay” restrictions. (Apparently, some regulations need a little regulating themselves.)
Here is what employers should know. Unless otherwise noted, the
For a brief moment, noncompete law was headed toward a single national rule. Then the Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC) rule was set aside, the agency abandoned its appeals, and the map splintered. While the federal rule is gone, the policy fight is not—it has simply relocated to state capitols and courtrooms.
The FTC proceedings gave state lawmakers a policy record and a menu of competing
The California Legislature recently passed Assembly Bill 1883 (“AB 1883”), which would prohibit employers from using artificial intelligence (“AI”) workplace surveillance tools for two specific purposes: recognizing employees’ emotional states or collecting employees’ neural data.
Earlier versions of AB 1883 were considerably broader. Among other things, prior versions would have restricted the use of surveillance tools to infer protected activity or protected characteristics, regulated facial-recognition
A Cruise employee was injured while riding in one of the company’s autonomous vehicles, but he was off duty and using the ride-hailing service as a customer. He sued Cruise and related entities, which sought arbitration under both his employment agreement and the Terms of Service associated with his customer account. The trial
A former employee asserted disability discrimination, failure to accommodate, failure to engage in the interactive process, retaliation under the California Family Rights Act, and common law wrongful termination claims. The trial court granted the employer’s motion to compel arbitration based on an arbitration clause that applied to disputes “regarding any aspect” of the
A former employee brought a putative wage-and-hour class action, and GEO sought to enforce an arbitration agreement signed during onboarding. The Court of Appeal held that the arbitration agreement had to be read together with a confidentiality agreement that was signed at the same time. Taken as a package, the documents
Medical Solutions first moved to compel a travel nurse’s wage-and-hour claims under an arbitration provision in its handbook. After the trial court denied the motion because that provision had been superseded, the company filed a second motion relying on a different arbitration agreement. The Court of Appeal held that the second filing
Employees sued for wrongful termination, discrimination, and sexual harassment. The employer answered, pursued extensive discovery over the course of three months, filed cross-claims, and otherwise advanced the court proceedings before moving to compel arbitration shortly after the employees filed an anti-SLAPP motion. Applying the California Supreme Court decision in Quach v. California