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
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
As California private employers of 100 or more employees and/or 100 or more workers hired through labor contractors may know, it is time to annually report pay, demographic, and other workforce data to the Civil Rights Department (“CRD”).
Although this year’s reporting requirements are mostly the same as last year’s (previously covered here), CRD has revised race and ethnicity categories as follows:
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.
We invite you to review our newly-posted January 2025 California Employment Law Notes, a comprehensive review of the latest and most significant developments in California employment law. The highlights include:
As we reported here, California’s Senate Bill (S.B.) 399, took effect on January 1, 2025. This law prohibits employers from requiring employees to attend meetings about the company’s opinions on political or religious matters, including discussions about unionization. California joins almost a dozen other states, including Illinois, New York, and Oregon, in enacting union-backed statutes that prohibit so-called “captive audience” meetings.
The Teamsters
Wildfires continue to rage across Southern California, leveling entire neighborhoods, forcing evacuations for tens of thousands of people, and posing incredible hardship on businesses and their employees. Below are a few common scenarios employers should know about paying their California employees and maintaining compliance with wage and hour laws:
“Our office was closed for a few days because of the fires. Do we have to