Under the unfair competition law (UCL), Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 et seq., a plaintiff may bring a cause of action for any “unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act or practice.” Generally, a UCL claim will be brought as a violation of rules set out in other laws or may be brought for any practice that is “unfair” even if not statutorily
Adolph Parts With Viking River, Opening Path for Arbitration-Bound Plaintiffs to Pursue PAGA Claims in Court
On July 17, 2023, approximately one year after the U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Viking River Cruises, the California Supreme Court issued its highly-anticipated decision in Adolph v. Uber Technologies. The Court answered the critical question of whether a Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) plaintiff retains their standing to pursue non-individual claims after their individual claims are compelled to arbitration. As many
July 2023 California Employment Law Notes
We invite you to review our newly-posted July 2023 California Employment Law Notes, a comprehensive review of the latest and most significant developments in California employment law. The highlights include:
- Enforcement of PAGA Carve Out Suggests Need For New Revisions To Arbitration Agreements
- PAGA Debt Not Dischargeable in Bankruptcy
- Distributors Not Liable For Unpaid Wages Of Agricultural Workers
- Exemption of Financial Professionals From ABC
Enforcement of PAGA Carve Out Suggests Need For New Revisions To Arbitration Agreements
Duran v. EmployBridge Holding Co., 92 Cal. App. 5th 59 (2023)
In 2014, the California Supreme Court determined that Private Attorneys General Act (“PAGA”) claims are immune from arbitration in Iskanian v. CLS Transp. Los Angeles, LLC – which, unsurprisingly, led to an avalanche of PAGA claims being filed as plaintiffs’ lawyers scrambled to make their cases arbitration-proof (at least as to those pesky
Statute Prohibits Employer Retaliation For Report Of Unlawful Activity Even If It’s Already Known To Employer
People ex rel. Garcia-Brower v. Kolla’s, Inc., 14 Cal. 5th 719 (2023)
The California Supreme Court has held that an employee who makes a whistleblower complaint to his or her employer may bring a retaliation claim under the whistleblower statute (Cal. Lab. Code § 1102.5(b)) even if the subject of the complaint was already known to the employer. The employee, who worked as
Crisis Averted: California Employers Are Not Liable for “Take-Home” COVID Cases.
Last week, the California Supreme Court unanimously ruled that employers are not liable to nonemployees who contract COVID-19 from employee household members that bring the virus home from their workplace, because “[a]n employer does not owe a duty of care under California law to prevent the spread of COVID-19 to employees’ household members.” Kuciemba v. Victory Woodworks, Inc., No. S274191 (Cal. July 6, 2023),
What Appellate Courts Are Missing About PAGA Standing After Viking River Cruises
The California Supreme Court has scheduled oral argument for May 9, 2023 in Adolph v. Uber Technologies, Inc., a closely watched case that concerns whether a Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) plaintiff loses standing to pursue a representative claim when their individual PAGA claim is compelled to arbitration. This question was left open by the blockbuster decision in Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana
California Supreme Court Holds That Meal And Rest Break Premiums Must Include All Forms Of Remuneration (Not Just Base Hourly Rate)
On July 15, 2021, the California Supreme Court issued its decision in Ferra v. Loews Hollywood Hotel, LLC, in which it held that meal and rest break premiums required under California Labor Code section 226.7 (“Section 226.7”) must be paid at non-exempt employees’ regular rate of pay—not merely their base hourly rate. The decision, which applies retroactively, requires that employers promptly adjust