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:
Alleging misclassification, John Quinn brought a PAGA action on behalf of a class consisting of securities broker-dealers and investment advisers against his employer LPL Financial. Quinn brought the PAGA action prior to the enactment of AB 2257, which exempted the occupations identified in Quinn’s PAGA action from the “ABC test” as set
The long-running feud between California and the “gig economy” shows no sign of ending soon. On April 28, 2023, the State of California submitted a petition to the Ninth Circuit in Olson v. California, No. 21-55757 (9th Cir.), seeking review or a rehearing before a new panel of judges, after a Ninth Circuit panel in March unanimously held that the plaintiffs (Uber, Postmates, and
On May 1, we reported on the California Supreme Court’s opinion in Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. Superior Court, in which the Supreme Court set forth the standard for determining if a worker may properly be classified as an employee or independent contractor. See Cal. Employment Law Blog (May 1, 2018). An issue that the Court did not address is whether its opinion should
Noe v. Superior Court, 237 Cal. App. 4th 316 (2015)
Several vendors who sold food and beverages at various entertainment venues in southern California sued for failure to pay minimum wage and willfully misclassifying them as independent contractors in violation of Cal. Lab. Code § 226.8. In this opinion, the Court of Appeal held that Section 226.8 applies not only to employers who make
Martinez v. Joe’s Crab Shack Holdings, 231 Cal. App. 4th 362 (2014)
Roberto Martinez and three other current or former employees of Joe’s Crab Shack (“JCS”) filed this putative class action asserting that they and similarly situated salaried managerial employees had been misclassified as exempt employees and were entitled to unpaid overtime and related wages. Plaintiffs alleged they worked more than 55 hours per
People v. Pac Anchor Transp., Inc., 2014 WL 3702674 (Cal. S. Ct. 2014)
The People on behalf of the State of California filed this unfair competition law (“UCL”) action against Pac Anchor Transportation, Inc., for misclassifying drivers as independent contractors and for other alleged violations of California labor and unemployment insurance laws. In response, Pac Anchor filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings
Alexander v. FedEx Ground Package Sys., Inc., 2014 WL 4211107 (9th Cir. 2014)
In this class action the named plaintiffs represent approximately 2,300 individuals who were full-time delivery drivers for FedEx in California between 2000 and 2007. FedEx characterizes its drivers as independent contractors in its Operating Agreement. Similar cases to this one were filed in approximately 40 states, and the Judicial Panel