As we reported here, a split in authority has developed in the California Court of Appeal regarding what to do when an employer moves to compel arbitration of a Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) that is “headless”—that is, a claim seeking penalties on behalf of all allegedly aggrieved employees except the named plaintiff. (This is the latest trick the plaintiff’s bar has come up
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,
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
The California Court of Appeal recently reminded employers in an unpublished (but nonetheless chastening) opinion of the importance of carefully drafting arbitration agreements.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.
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
In yet another attempt to avoid arbitration agreements, plaintiffs’ lawyers in the wake of the blockbuster court decisions in Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana and Adolph v. Uber Technologies, Inc. began filing so-called “headless” claims for civil penalties under the Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act (“PAGA”). In such cases, the plaintiff seeks civil penalties for all allegedly aggrieved employees except themself. Thus, these
As 2024 came to a close, yet another California jury delivered a massive award to an individual plaintiff in an employment discrimination case. This time, it was an award of over $11 million by a San Diego jury to a medical screener at a plasma donation center (Roque v. Octapharma Plasma, Inc.). The 74-year-old plaintiff alleged that her employer failed to accommodate her
On November 8, 2024, the California Privacy Protection Agency (CPPA) voted 4-1 to proceed with formal rulemaking regarding automated decision-making technology (“ADMT”), which the draft regulations define as “any technology that processes personal information and uses computation to execute a decision, replace human decisionmaking, or substantially facilitate human decisionmaking.” If enacted, the regulations would impose sweeping requirements on employers who rely on assistance from artificial
The California Labor Workforce Development Agency (LWDA) recently refreshed its Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) regarding Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) claims processing in light of the recent legislative reforms.
As we reported here, California enacted A.B. 2288 and S.B. 92 this past summer, bringing long-overdue reforms to PAGA. The new legislation applies to PAGA notices and any resulting actions filed on or after June
The “Summer of PAGA” continued last week when the California Supreme Court ruled in Turrieta v. Lyft, Inc., Case No. S271721, that a plaintiff in a Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) action does not have standing to intervene or object to a settlement in a parallel action involving overlapping PAGA claims.
The structure of PAGA tends to invite the scenario facing the parties and