We invite you to review our newly-posted November 2023 California Employment Law Notes, a comprehensive review of the latest and most significant developments in California employment law. The highlights include:

In Arias v. Superior Court, 46 Cal. 4th 969 (2009), the California Supreme Court ruled that Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) actions need not satisfy class action requirements, and in the fourteen years since, PAGA plaintiffs have routinely (and often successfully) resisted attempts to apply class action principles to PAGA actions.  A recent unpublished California Court of Appeal decision bucks that trend by lending

Woodworth v. Loma Linda Univ. Med. Ctr., 93 Cal. App. 5th 1038 (2023)

Nicole Woodworth was a registered nurse at Loma Linda University Medical Center from December 2011 to June 2014.  In June 2014, she filed a putative class action against Loma Linda, alleging various wage and hour claims on behalf of herself and other employees.  She later amended her complaint to add a

Raines v. U.S. Healthworks Med. Group, 2023 WL 5341067 (Cal. S. Ct. 2023)

The Ninth Circuit certified to the California Supreme Court the question of whether FEHA’s definition of “employer” extends to corporate agents of the employer such as a company that conducts preemployment medical screenings.  In this putative class action, plaintiffs allege that their employment offers were conditioned upon their completion of pre-employment

Adolph v. Uber Techs., Inc., 14 Cal. 5th 1104 (2023)

After months of anticipation, the California Supreme Court answered “yes” to the critical question of whether “aggrieved” PAGA plaintiffs retain their standing to pursue representative claims in court after their individual claims have been compelled to arbitration.

Erik Adolph worked as a driver for Uber, delivering food to customers through Uber’s online platform.  As

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:

North Am. Title Co. v. Superior Court, 91 Cal. App. 5th 948 (2023)

During oral argument on a motion, the trial judge accused the employer-defendants of participating in a “name change shell game,” a “corporate game of three-card monte” and “trickery” and “scheming” to evade payment of a $43.5 million judgment to plaintiffs in this wage-and-hour class action.  One employer (Lennar Title) filed

Last summer, we reported here the California Supreme Court ruling that premium payments owed under Labor Code section 226.7 for meal and rest break violations constitute “wages.” The Naranjo et al. v. Spectrum Sec. Servs., Inc., 13 Cal. 5th 93, 102 (2022) decision had significant ramifications because it triggered related obligations for employers to report the premiums on employee wage statements, pay employees these

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:

Limon v. Circle K Stores Inc., 2022 WL 14391789 (Cal. Ct. App. 2022)

Plaintiff Ernesto Limon was employed by Circle K (which operates gas stations and convenience stores in California) for just one month before filing this putative class action lawsuit against his former employer, alleging violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA).  Limon alleged that Circle K’s standard form in which it