For the past 40 years, federal administrative agencies have enjoyed broad latitude in interpreting statutes passed by Congress. Known as “Chevron deference,” courts have routinely deferred to the agencies’ often politically motivated and even self-empowering interpretation of an otherwise ambiguous statute. This has led to a significant delegation (indeed, some would say surrender) of authority by the legislative and judicial branches to the executive
The Empire Struck Back last week when the California Court of Appeal held that the state’s latest back-door attempt to outlaw employment arbitration by any means necessary is preempted by the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA). Hernandez v. Sohnen Enterprises, Inc., 2024 WL 2313710 (Cal. Ct. App. 2024). As indicated in our earlier post on this topic, it was just a matter of time before
We invite you to review our newly-posted May 2024 California Employment Law Notes, a comprehensive review of the latest and most significant developments in California employment law. The highlights include:
Naranjo v. Spectrum Sec. Servs., Inc., 2024 WL 1979980 (Cal. S. Ct. 2024)
Gustavo Naranjo, a security guard, filed a putative class action against his former employer, alleging violations of California Labor Code section 226 based upon the employer’s failure to report missed-break meal premiums on employees’ wage statements. Labor Code Section 226 imposes a penalty of up to $4,000 per employee when an
Vines v. O’Reilly Auto Enterprises, LLC, 2024 WL 1751760 (Cal. Ct. App. 2024)
Renee Vines filed an action against his former employer alleging discrimination and harassment under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”) based on his race and age; that he was retaliated against when he was wrongfully terminated after he complained about the discrimination and harassment; and that his employer failed to prevent
Balderas v. Fresh Start Harvesting, Inc., 101 Cal. App. 5th 533 (2024)
Lizbeth Balderas sued her former employer on behalf of 500 other current and former employees of an agricultural company, seeking civil penalties under the California Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (“PAGA”). In her complaint, Balderas stated she was “not suing in her individual capacity; she is proceeding herein solely under
Semprini v. Wedbush Secs. Inc., 101 Cal. App. 5th 518 (2024)
Joseph Semprini originally filed a lawsuit against his employer in 2015, which included individual claims, class action claims and a cause of action under the California Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (“PAGA”). Soon after this, Semprini and the employer entered into a stipulation to arbitrate plaintiff’s personal claims but have
Vazquez v. SaniSure, Inc., 101 Cal. App. 5th 139 (2024)
Jasmine Vazquez began working at a pharmaceutical company through a staffing agency and was later hired by the company as an at-will employee. At the time of initial hire, Vazquez agreed that claims she had against the company would be submitted to and determined exclusively by binding arbitration and that she would bring any
Huerta v. CSI Elec. Contractors, 15 Cal. 5th 908 (2024)
This decision arose from a class action asserting wage claims on behalf of contractors hired to assist with “procurement, installation, construction, and testing services” at a solar power facility on privately-owned land. The California Supreme Court answered three questions certified by the Ninth Circuit as follows:
Gramajo v. Joe’s Pizza on Sunset, Inc., 100 Cal. App. 5th 1094 (2024)
Elinton Gramajo worked as a pizza delivery driver for less than a year and sued his former employer for various Labor Code violations, including minimum and overtime wage claims. After nearly four years of litigation and extensive discovery, a jury awarded Gramajo only $7,659.93 though his attorneys sought approximately $324,000 in prevailing