In a ruling that has garnered significant interest among employers, the U.S. Supreme Court held on Wednesday that the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) preempts the California Supreme Court’s efforts to impose heightened unconscionability standards on class action waivers in consumer arbitration agreements. This decision may also sound the death knell for similar restrictions imposed by California and other states on arbitration agreements in the employment setting.

We invite you to review our newly posted March 2011 California Employment Law Notes — a comprehensive review of the latest and most significant developments in California employment law.  The highlights include: 

…

Arechiga v. Dolores Press, Inc., 192 Cal. App. 4th 567 (2011)

Carlos Arechiga worked as a janitor for Dolores Press for almost seven years at which time his employment was terminated. Although Arechiga filed a complaint alleging various causes of action, only his claim for violation of the Unfair Competition Law went to trial. Arechiga, a non-exempt employee, claimed the $880 that he received…

Price v. Starbucks Corp., 192 Cal. App. 4th 1136 (2011)

Drake Price worked as an entry-level Starbucks barista for approximately 13 shifts before he was fired. Following his termination, he sued Starbucks on behalf of himself and a putative class of employees seeking to recover unpaid wages, penalties and damages for Starbucks’ alleged failure to timely pay him wages upon termination, failure to pay…

Heritage Residential Care, Inc. v. Division of Labor Standards Enforcement, 192 Cal. App. 4th 75 (2011)

Heritage Residential, a company that operates seven residential care facilities, employed 24 workers, 16 of whom lacked social security numbers. Heritage treated the 16 employees who did not have social security numbers as independent contractors and issued them 1099 statements rather than itemized wage statements. Following a workplace…

Seymore v. Metson Marine, Inc., 194 Cal. App. 4th 361 (2011)

Plaintiffs Andrew Seymore and Kenneth Blonden were employed by Metson Marine as crew members on Metson’s offshore oil spill recovery vessels. Crew members worked 14-day rotational hitches, alternating with 14-day rest periods and were paid to work a 12-hour daily shift during the two-week period, except on crew-change days, when they worked only…

Christopher v. SmithKline Beecham Corp., 635 F.3d 383 (2011)

Michael Christopher and Frank Buchanan were employed as pharmaceutical sales representatives (“PSRs”) of SmithKline d/b/a GlaxoSmithKline (“Glaxo”) and were classified as outside salesmen exempt from the Fair Labor Standards Act. PSRs work outside of a Glaxo office and spend much of their time traveling to the offices of and working with physicians within their assigned…

Hodge v. Aon Ins. Servs., 192 Cal. App. 4th 1361 (2011)

Plaintiffs in this case are claims adjusters employed by a third party administrator (Cambridge Integrated Services Group, Inc.). Depending on the entity with which it contracts and the terms of the contract, Cambridge adjusts general liability, vehicle-related and workers’ compensation claims. In their claim alleging violation of the Unfair Competition Law, plaintiffs alleged…

United Parcel Serv., Inc. v. Superior Court, 192 Cal. App. 4th 1043 (2011)

Pursuant to Labor Code § 226.7(b), “[i]f an employer fails to provide an employee a meal period or rest period… the employer shall pay the employee one additional hour of pay at the employee’s regular rate of compensation for each work day that the meal or rest period is not provided.”…