Yesterday, a three-judge Ninth Circuit panel revisited its own 2021 order and finally struck down California’s anti-mandatory employment arbitration law, Assembly Bill 51 (“AB 51”). In an opinion drafted by the former dissenting judge, Judge Sandra Ikuta, the new majority declared AB 51 was preempted by the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”).
The statute in question, signed into law by Governor Newsom in 2019, was California
Godfrey v. Oakland Port Servs. Corp., 2014 WL 5439289 (Cal. Ct. App. 2014)
Plantiffs Lavon Godfrey and Gary Gilbert initiated this class action against AB Trucking, alleging that AB did not pay its drivers for all hours worked, misclassified some drivers as non-employee trainees whom it did not pay at all, and failed to provide required meal and rest breaks. The trial court certified
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
Salas v. Sierra Chem. Co., 2014 WL 2883878 (Cal. S. Ct. 2014)
Vicente Salas worked on Sierra Chemical’s production line, filling containers with various chemicals. At the time of his hire, Salas provided Sierra with a resident alien card and a Social Security card and signed an Employment Eligibility Verification Form (I-9 Form). After allegedly injuring his back several times and presenting doctors’ notes
The plaintiff in Iskanian v. CLS Transp. Los Angeles, LLC, brought a putative class action and a representative action under California’s Private Attorney General Act (PAGA) for various wage and hour violations. During his employment, Iskanian agreed that he would not assert class action or representative action claims against his employer and, instead, agreed to submit any legal claims he had to binding arbitration.
The California Court of Appeal for the Second District held that the employee was bound by his agreement. Relying on the United States Supreme Court’s 2011 decision in AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, the Court held that the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) preempts any state law prohibiting class action waivers in arbitration agreements. The Court also found that Concepcion overruled Gentry v. Superior Court – a California Supreme Court decision which held that class action waivers in arbitration agreements are unenforceable if class arbitration would be more efficient than individual litigation. Rejecting this notion, the Court stated, “a rule like Gentry – requiring Courts to determine whether to impose class arbitration on parties who contractually rejected it – cannot be considered consistent with the objective of enforcing arbitration agreements according to their terms.”
Quinn v. U.S. Bank, N.A., 196 Cal. App. 4th 168 (2011)
Robert Quinn, a former senior vice president of U.S. Bank, alleged he was denied accommodation, harassed and terminated because of a physical disability in violation of the Fair Employment and Housing Act. U.S. Bank obtained summary judgment from the trial court on the ground that Quinn’s FEHA claims were preempted by the dismissal-at-pleasure
Chamber of Commerce v. Whiting, 563 U.S. ___, 131 S. Ct. 1968 (2011)
In 1996, Congress created E-Verify, which is “an internet-based system that allows an employer to verify an employee’s work-authorization status.” In 2007, Arizona enacted the Legal Arizona Workers Act, which allows Arizona to suspend or revoke the licenses necessary to do business in the state if an employer knowingly or intentionally
On November 3, 2010, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals refused to hear an appeal brought by a Harrah’s Las Vegas casino dealer challenging the District Court’s ruling that her proposed state wage-and-hour class action was preempted by the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). In so doing, the Ninth Circuit chose not to revisit the District Court’s ruling that the plaintiff could not assert parallel federal and state wage-and-hour class actions. This ruling provides welcome relief to employers threatened by such a multiplicity of claims.
Naranjo v. Spectrum Sec. Services, 172 Cal. App. 4th 654 (2009)
Gustavo Naranjo worked as a detention officer for Spectrum, which provides security services in holding facilities and detention centers throughout Los Angeles County under a contract with federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”). The terms of Spectrum’s contract with ICE rely on wage and fringe benefit determinations by the Secretary of the U.S.
Golden Gate Restaurant Ass’n v. City and County of San Francisco, 535 F. Supp. 2d 968 (N.D. Cal. 2007)
In 2006, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors passed and the Mayor signed into law the San Francisco Health Care Security Ordinance which, among other things, would have required employers with more than 20 employees to make health care expenditures on behalf of their employees.