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
California Labor & Employment Law

It’s That Time Of Year Again – California Pay Data Reporting Is Due May 14, 2025!
As California private employers of 100 or more employees and/or 100 or more workers hired through labor contractors may know, it is time to annually report pay, demographic, and other workforce data to the Civil Rights Department (“CRD”).
Although this year’s reporting requirements are mostly the same as last year’s (previously covered here), CRD has revised race and ethnicity categories as follows:
- Adding a

“Have It Your Way,” California! $20 Minimum Wage Backfires
In late 2023, California supersized the minimum wage for fast food workers by a whopping 25 percent (increasing it from $16 to $20). This law was opposed by the fast food industry, while labor unions (and their many friends and admirers in Sacramento) insisted it would “benefit workers.”
Well, the results are in. According to a new study released by the Berkeley Research Group, the…

Another Arbitration Agreement Bites the Dust!
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…
January 2025 California Employment Law Notes
We invite you to review our newly-posted January 2025 California Employment Law Notes, a comprehensive review of the latest and most significant developments in California employment law. The highlights include:

Arbitrator’s Findings Barred SOX Claim Filed In Court
Hansen v. Musk, 122 F.4th 1162 (9th Cir. 2024)
Karl Hansen sued Tesla, Inc., its CEO (Elon Musk) and another entity alleging he was retaliated against for reporting “misconduct” at Tesla. The district court ordered most of Hansen’s claims to arbitration except his claim under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (SOX), which cannot be compelled to arbitration pursuant to a predispute arbitration agreement (18 U.S.C. §…

Arbitration Agreement Was Unconscionable And Thus Unenforceable
Jenkins v. Dermatology Mgmt., LLC, 107 Cal. App. 5th 633 (2024)
The employer in this case sought to compel to arbitration a putative class action that was filed by former employee Annalycia Jenkins who claimed unfair competition pursuant to Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200. The trial court denied the employer’s motion to compel because the arbitration agreement was substantially unconscionable based on a…

Non-Parties To Arbitration Agreement May Compel Arbitration Based On Equitable Estoppel
Gonzalez v. Nowhere Beverly Hills LLC, 107 Cal. App. 5th 111 (2024)
Edgar Gonzalez worked for Nowhere Santa Monica at its Erewhon market for approximately five months before filing a putative class action for wage-and-hour violations under the California Labor Code. Gonzalez filed suit against 10 Nowhere entities in response to which the 10 entities filed a motion to compel arbitration based upon an…

Employee Cannot Avoid Arbitration With “Headless” PAGA Claim
Leeper v. Shipt, Inc., 2024 WL 5251619 (Cal. Ct. App. 2024)
Christina Leeper entered into an independent contractor agreement with Shipt, Inc. (“Shipt”), a subsidiary of Target Corporation (“Target”), as well as an arbitration agreement that required her to arbitrate any personal/individual claims. She subsequently filed a purported “representative” lawsuit against Shipt and Target, alleging a “representative” PAGA claim – i.e., exclusively seeking penalties incurred…

Employment Claims Against Religious Institution Are Barred By The First Amendment
Markel v. Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of Am., 124 F.5th 796 (9th Cir. 2024)
Yaakov Markel was employed by the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America (OU) as a mashgiach to supervise food preparation for kosher compliance. Markel’s relationship with OU and his supervisor, Rabbi Nachum Rabinowitz, “soured” after he did not receive a promotion and a raise that he claims he was…