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 dealt another blow to arbitration, just months after we reported the last such decision here.
This time, the Court ruled that the federal Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act (“EFAA”) overrides state law—even in cases in which the employee has signed an arbitration agreement that explicitly invokes state law favoring arbitration.
Kristin Casey, a former
The California Court of Appeal recently reminded employers in an unpublished (but nonetheless chastening) opinion of the importance of carefully drafting arbitration agreements.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.
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