Arbitration Agreements

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

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

A recent unpublished California Court of Appeal decision, Hegemier v. A Better Life Recovery LLC, Cal. Ct. App., 4th Dist., No. G061892, demonstrates the potential consequence of drafting an arbitration agreement without foreseeing every way a future plaintiff might attempt to pick it apart. 

Almost two years ago, in Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana, 596 U.S. 639 (2022),the United States Supreme

We invite you to review our newly-posted March 2024 California Employment Law Notes, a comprehensive review of the latest and most significant developments in California employment law. The highlights include:

Hohenshelt v. Superior Court, 318 Cal. Rptr. 3d 475 (Cal. Ct. App. 2024)

For the seventh time since they became effective in 2020, the California Court of Appeal has published an opinion holding that Cal. Code Civ. Proc. §§ 1281.97 and 1281.98 truly mean what they say: “[I]f the [arbitration] fees or costs… are not paid [by the employer] within 30 days after the

Kader v. Southern Cal. Med. Ctr.Inc., 99 Cal. App. 5th 214 (2024)

The Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act (9 U.S.C. §§ 401, et seq.) became effective on March 3, 2022. A “statutory note” to the Act states that the “Act shall apply with respect to any dispute or claim that arises or accrues on or after the

We invite you to review our newly-posted January 2024 California Employment Law Notes, a comprehensive review of the latest and most significant developments in California employment law. The highlights include:

DeMarinis v. Heritage Bank of Commerce, 2023 WL 9113099 (Cal. Ct. App. 2023)

Former bank employees filed a lawsuit against their former employer for various wage-and-hour violations. The lawsuit included a Private Attorneys General Act (“PAGA”) claim, under which plaintiffs sued on behalf of all other “aggrieved employees” of the company. In response, the bank filed an unsuccessful motion to compel plaintiffs’ “individual” claims