California Supreme Court

On March 25, 2024, the California Supreme Court issued its opinion in Huerta v. CSI Electrical Contractors, Case No. S275431, providing additional guidance on compensable “hours worked” under California law.  In a class action asserting wage claims on behalf of contractors at a construction site, the Supreme Court answered three questions certified by the Ninth Circuit as follows:

First, the Court held

We invite you to review our newly-posted March 2024 California Employment Law Notes, a comprehensive review of the latest and most significant developments in California employment law. The highlights include:

Johnson v. Lowe’s Home Centers, LLC, 93 F.4th 459 (9th Cir. 2024)

The Ninth Circuit vacated a district court’s dismissal of a former employee’s “non-individual” Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) claims in the wake of the California Supreme Court’s holding in Adolph v. Uber Techs., Inc., 14 Cal. 5th 1104 (2023). Plaintiff in this case signed a contract with her employer (Lowe’s)

Estrada v. Royalty Carpet Mills, Inc., 15 Cal. 5th 582 (2024)

The California Supreme Court affirmed an appellate court judgment that “trial courts lack inherent authority to strike PAGA claims on manageability grounds”—that is, trial courts may not “dismiss [them] with prejudice.” In so holding, the Supreme Court overruled Wesson v. Staples the Office Superstore, LLC, 68 Cal. App. 5th 746 (2021).

The

The California Supreme Court has issued its much-anticipated decision in Estrada v. Royalty Carpet Mills, Inc., determining whether Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) claims can be dismissed as unmanageable.  The Court affirmed a lower court’s decision, holding that “trial courts lack inherent authority to strike PAGA claims on manageability grounds”—that is, trial courts may not “dismiss [them] with prejudice.”  Slip op. at 1-2.  In

Kuciemba v. Victory Woodworks, Inc., 14 Cal. 5th 993 (2023); 74 F.4th 1039 (9th Cir. 2023)

The California Supreme Court unanimously ruled that employers are not liable to nonemployees who contract COVID-19 from employee household members who 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

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 September 2023 California Employment Law Notes, a comprehensive review of the latest and most significant developments in California employment law. The highlights include:

California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) is already one of the most employee-friendly state civil rights laws in the country. Until now, it was not clear whether employees could sue not only their direct employers for discrimination and harassment, but also other independent businesses that work on behalf on their employers.

In Raines v. U.S. Healthworks Medical Group, the California Supreme Court ruled