The California Supreme Court handed employers a consolation prize this week, holding that an employer does not incur monetary penalties if there is a reasonable, good faith dispute over whether the employer violated the wage statement statute. Naranjo v. Spectrum Sec. Servs., Inc., 2024 WL 1979980 (Cal. May 6, 2024).

One of the employer’s workers in this case filed a putative class action, alleging

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

DeMarinis v. Heritage Bank of Commerce, 2023 WL 9113099 (Cal. Ct. App. 2023)

Former bank employees filed a lawsuit against their former employer for various wage-and-hour violations. The lawsuit included a Private Attorneys General Act (“PAGA”) claim, under which plaintiffs sued on behalf of all other “aggrieved employees” of the company. In response, the bank filed an unsuccessful motion to compel plaintiffs’ “individual” claims

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

On May 10, 2023, the California Supreme Court heard oral argument in Adolph v. Uber Technologies, Inc., a closely watched case that will decide whether a Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) plaintiff loses standing to pursue a representative claim when their individual PAGA claim is compelled to arbitration.

Observers hoping for a sign that the court was inclined to rule for the employer may

Effective January 1, 2023, California employers will be required to meet new minimum wage requirements, at both the state and local level.  This increase in the minimum wage affects not only non-exempt employees, but also the minimum annual salary requirement for overtime exempt employees.

Increase and Consolidation of the California Minimum Wage

Previously, the State of California employed a two-tiered minimum wage system, requiring employers

On November 22, 2022, the Los Angeles City Council unanimously passed the Fair Work Week Ordinance (“FWWO”).  Set to take effect in April 2023, the new law imposes significant requirements on retail employers in the City of Los Angeles with respect to both scheduling and hiring.  It follows in the footsteps of similar predictive scheduling laws already on the books in other major cities, including

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:

Jauregui v. Roadrunner Transp. Servs., Inc., 28 F.4th 989 (9th Cir. 2022)

Griselda Jauregui filed this putative class action in California state court against Roadrunner Transportation Services on behalf of all current and former hourly workers in California. The complaint alleged numerous violations of California wage and hour law. Roadrunner removed the case to federal court, invoking the Class Action Fairness Act (“CAFA”). Plaintiff

LGCY Power, LLC v. Superior Court, 75 Cal. App. 5th 844 (2022)

California resident Michael Jed Sewell worked as a sales representative and sales manager for LGCY Power, which is headquartered in Salt Lake County, Utah. In 2015, Sewell signed a “Solar Representative Agreement,” which included noncompetition, nonsolicitation and confidentiality provisions as well as Utah choice of law and forum provisions. In 2019, Sewell