New Period of Employment Requires New Arbitration Agreement
Vazquez v. SaniSure, Inc., 101 Cal. App. 5th 139 (2024)
Jasmine Vazquez began working at a pharmaceutical company through a staffing agency and was later hired by the company as an at-will employee. At the time of initial hire, Vazquez agreed that claims she had against the company would be submitted to and determined exclusively by binding arbitration and that she would bring any
California Supreme Court Clarifies Scope of Compensable “Hours Worked”
- An employee’s time spent on an employer’s premises
Layoffs Accelerate As Employers Struggle with Record Inflation
As the economy continues to struggle amidst the ravages of 40-year-high inflation, employers are finding it increasingly difficult to maintain their current staffing levels.
While the tech industry has been the epicenter for layoffs thus far, a growing number of industries are being affected as well, including banking, financial, and legal services, and media outlets.
The trend for mass job cuts appears to be accelerating.
November 2022 California Employment Law Notes
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:
- Equal Pay Act Claim Should Not Have Been Dismissed
- Whistleblower Claim Should Not Have Been Dismissed In Part
- School District Employee May Have Been Discriminated Against On The Basis Of A Disability
- Offer To
Former Employee Was Not Injured By Alleged Violation Of FCRA
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
July 2022 California Employment Law Notes
We invite you to review our newly-posted July 2022 California Employment Law Notes, a comprehensive review of the latest and most significant developments in California employment law. The highlights include:
- Summary Judgment Was Properly Granted To Employer In Whistleblower Case
- Job Applicants Need Not Be Paid For Time/Expenses Associated With Drug Testing
- Employer May Have Willfully Violated FCRA By Not Providing Employees Proper Background
Employer May Have Willfully Violated FCRA By Not Providing Employees Proper Background Check Notice
Hebert v. Barnes & Noble, Inc., 78 Cal. App. 5th 791 (2022)
The federal Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”) requires an employer to provide a job applicant with a standalone disclosure stating that the employer may obtain the applicant’s consumer report when making a hiring decision. In this putative class action, Vicki Hebert alleged that Barnes & Noble willfully violated the FCRA by providing
Job Applicants Need Not Be Paid For Time/Expenses Associated With Drug Testing
Johnson v. WinCo Foods, LLC, 2022 WL 2112792 (9th Cir. 2022)
Alfred Johnson brought this class action against WinCo, seeking compensation as an “employee” for the time and expense of taking a drug test as a successful applicant for employment. Plaintiffs argued that because the drug tests were administered under the control of the employer, they qualified as “employees” under California law. The district
May 2022 California Employment Law Notes
We invite you to review our newly-posted May 2022 California Employment Law Notes, a comprehensive review of the latest and most significant developments in California employment law. The highlights include:
- Former UCLA Physician Can Proceed With Whistleblower Claims
- Former Employee Adequately Alleged Disability Under The ADA
- California Resident May Rely Upon Labor Code § 925 To Challenge Non-Compete
- School District Is Not Liable For