United States Supreme Court

Subscribe to United States Supreme Court via RSS

We invite you to review our newly-posted March 2023 California Employment Law Notes, a comprehensive review of the latest and most significant developments in California employment law. The highlights include:

…

Helix Energy Solutions Group, Inc. v. Hewitt, 598 U.S. ___, 143 S. Ct. 677 (2023)

Oil rig worker Michael Hewitt earned over $200,000 per year but did not receive overtime compensation. Hewitt was paid on a “daily-rate” basis, i.e., Hewitt’s biweekly paycheck was calculated based on a daily rate which was multiplied by the number of days he worked during the pay period. Helix…

Piplack v. In-N-Out Burgers, 2023 WL 2384502 (Cal. Ct. App. 2023)

In-N-Out Burgers appealed from the trial court’s denial of its motion to compel arbitration. The trial court denied the motion because In-N-Out’s arbitration agreement contained an unenforceable PAGA waiver. After the trial court’s ruling, the United States Supreme Court held in Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana, 142 S. Ct. 1906 (2022)…

We invite you to review our newly-posted March 2022 California Employment Law Notes, a comprehensive review of the latest and most significant developments in California employment law. The highlights include:

…

National Fed’n of Indep. Bus. v. OSHA, 595 U.S. ___, 142 S. Ct. 661 (2022)

The United States Secretary of Labor, acting through the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, enacted a vaccine mandate that would have required employers with at least 100 employees to require their employees (approximately 84 million workers) to receive a COVID-19 vaccination or to obtain a medical test each week…

Encino Motorcars, LLC v. Navarro, 584 U.S. ­­­___, 138 S. Ct. 1134 (2018)

An amendment to the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) exempts from its overtime requirements “any salesman, partsman, or mechanic primarily engaged in selling or servicing automobiles, trucks, or farm implements.” The U.S. Department of Labor (“DOL”) subsequently issued an opinion letter and amended its Field Operations Handbook to state that service…

Artis v. District of Columbia, 583 U.S. ___, 138 S. Ct. 594 (2018)

Stephanie Artis filed a Title VII employment discrimination case against her employer, the District of Columbia, which was eventually dismissed on summary judgment by the district court; the district court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims that were included in the complaint. Artis then refiled her state…

Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 577 U.S. ___, 136 S. Ct. 663 (2016)

In this putative class action involving an alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (prohibiting using an automatic dialing system to send a text message to a cellular telephone, absent the recipient’s express consent), Campbell-Ewald proposed to settle Jose Gomez’s individual claim and filed an offer of judgment pursuant to FRCP…