We invite you to review our newly-posted March 2023 California Employment Law Notes, a comprehensive review of the latest and most significant developments in California employment law. The highlights include:
Armstrong v. Michaels Stores, Inc., 59 F.4th 1011 (9th Cir. 2023)
Teresa Armstrong executed an arbitration agreement with her employer Michaels Stores. After filing her claims in state court, Michaels answered, asserting its right to arbitration as an affirmative defense and removing the action to federal district court. The parties then submitted a joint case management statement that referenced as an issue in dispute
Chamber of Commerce v. Bonta, 2023 WL 2013326 (9th Cir. 2023)
A Ninth Circuit panel struck down California’s AB 51 (aka the Request Arbitration, Go to Jail Law). The law imposed civil and criminal penalties on employers that required employees to sign arbitration agreements. The same panel previously held that the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) preempted much of the law but declined to
Piplack v. In-N-Out Burgers, 2023 WL 2384502 (Cal. Ct. App. 2023)
In-N-Out Burgers appealed from the trial court’s denial of its motion to compel arbitration. The trial court denied the motion because In-N-Out’s arbitration agreement contained an unenforceable PAGA waiver. After the trial court’s ruling, the United States Supreme Court held in Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana, 142 S. Ct. 1906 (2022)
Yesterday, a three-judge Ninth Circuit panel revisited its own 2021 order and finally struck down California’s anti-mandatory employment arbitration law, Assembly Bill 51 (“AB 51”). In an opinion drafted by the former dissenting judge, Judge Sandra Ikuta, the new majority declared AB 51 was preempted by the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”).
The statute in question, signed into law by Governor Newsom in 2019, was California
In recent years, employees (and their lawyers) have taken a variety of approaches to challenging the enforceability of workplace arbitration agreements. One common tactic has been to claim that they “don’t remember signing it” and, therefore, should not be required to arbitrate their claims. And at least one Court in the Second Appellate District has accepted this excuse. See Gamboa v. Northeast Community Clinic
A California court has ruled that an arbitrator (not a judge) should decide on the applicability of California Labor Code Section 925 to a dispute between a law firm partner and his former law firm. Zhang v. Superior Court, 2022 WL 16832570 (Cal. Ct. App. 2022). This ruling potentially undermines the protections of Labor Code Section 925, which permits an employee to
We invite you to review our newly-posted November 2022 California Employment Law Notes, a comprehensive review of the latest and most significant developments in California employment law. The highlights include:
Espinoza v. Superior Court, 83 Cal. App. 5th 761 (2022)
Rosa M. Quincoza Espinoza sued her former employer, Centinela Skilled Nursing & Wellness Centre West, LLC, for discrimination and retaliation. The employer filed a motion to stay the litigation and compel arbitration, invoking the terms of an arbitration agreement that Espinoza had signed. After the employer’s motion to compel arbitration was granted, Espinoza’s counsel
As we previously reported here, in Chamber of Commerce of the U.S.A. v. Bonta, 13 F.4th 766 (9th Cir. 2021), a three member panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals resurrected California Labor Code Section 432.6, which prohibited employers from requiring California employees to agree to arbitrate their employment-related disputes.
In a new twist, however, the same Ninth Circuit