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
It’s not like we didn’t tell you so, cuz we did! Just last year, we predicted that the latest assault on employer arbitration rights had the potential to destroy arbitration everywhere in the country. Is Arbitration Becoming “Just Somebody That We Used to Know”? Well, it’s happening, and the most recent salvo (not surprisingly) comes from the Golden State.
On Monday, a California appellate court
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:
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A recent unpublished California Court of Appeal decision, Hegemier v. A Better Life Recovery LLC, Cal.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