As we have previously reported here and here, “nuclear” verdicts from California juries in employment discrimination and harassment cases have become increasingly common over the past few years. Although these massive verdicts garner a lot of attention, they are only part of the story after the verdict comes in.
For many successful plaintiffs, the journey to collect these awards is fraught with numerous delays
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
As we previously reported, a Los Angeles jury awarded one of the largest verdicts in history in a sexual assault case in June 2024, doling out a massive $900 million verdict in favor of a plaintiff in a suit against billionaire Alkiviades David. This week, however, a Los Angeles County Court found the damages award “shocked the conscience” and ordered the case to go
This week a Los Angeles jury awarded a plaintiff nearly $1 billion in damages for workplace sexual assault. The defendant, billionaire Alkiviades David, suffered a staggering loss when a Los Angeles Superior Court jury doled out a massive $900 million verdict in favor of David’s former employee, who brought suit against him in 2020 alleging years of sexual assault, battery, and harassment. Plaintiff was hired
With the sweeping presence of technology today, the boundary between work life and home life has become increasingly blurred. A new bill recently introduced to the California legislature seeks to change that by protecting employees’ “right to disconnect.”
Assembly Bill 2751, introduced by Assemblyman Matt Haney (D-San Francisco), proposes to add a Section 1198.2 to the Labor Code that would effectively prevent employers from contacting employees
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
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
On July 17, 2023, approximately one year after the U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Viking River Cruises, the California Supreme Court issued its highly-anticipated decision in Adolph v. Uber Technologies. The Court answered the critical question of whether a Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) plaintiff retains their standing to pursue non-individual claims after their individual claims are compelled to arbitration. As many
As we previously covered here, the State of California and select California cities increased the minimum wage effective January 1, 2023. Now, another round of minimum wage increases from a dozen localities will take effect on July 1, 2023.
The following list contains the local minimum wage rate, effective July 1, 2023, for non-exempt employees working in each of the California counties and municipalities
Back in the “good old days,” arbitration agreements barred just about any type of civil litigation that was filed in court. Then, as we reported in 2014, the California Supreme Court determined that Private Attorneys General Act (“PAGA”) claims are immune from arbitration in Iskanian v. CLS Transp. Los Angeles, LLC – which, unsurprisingly, led to an avalanche of PAGA claims being filed as plaintiffs’