Employers: have you thought about the true implications of waiving arbitration? When considering how to end sexual harassment issues in the workplace, prioritizing training and policy review may be a better course. Read more in Anthony Oncidi’s latest column in the Los Angeles Daily Journal: https://lnkd.in/dcMBBFm
When the California Supreme Court decided Iskanian v. CLS Transp. Los Angeles, LLC, 59 Cal. 4th 348 (2014), this June, some legal commentators assumed that employees could not waive pre-litigation claims under the Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA). Those assumptions may have been premature. As we noted here, at least one federal court refused to apply Iskanian forcing an employee’s individual PAGA claims
In a post last week, we noted a recent trend of federal courts strongly enforcing employment arbitration agreements under the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”). That trend continues in Richards v. Ernst & Young, LLP, Case No. 11-17530 (9th Cir. Aug. 21, 2013), which holds that a defendant’s pretrial participation in litigation does not, absent prejudice to the plaintiff, necessarily waive the defendant’s right to
In re Pac. Pictures Corp., 2012 WL 1640627 (9th Cir. 2012)
Although this case did not arise in the employment context, it has implications in labor and employment litigation matters in which a government agency is involved. The question the Ninth Circuit decided is whether a party waives the attorney-client privilege forever by voluntarily disclosing privileged documents to the federal government. The Court answered
Edwards v. Arthur Andersen LLP, 44 Cal. 4th 937 (2008)
CPA Raymond Edwards II was hired in 1997 as a tax manager for the Los Angeles office of the now defunct accounting firm Arthur Andersen LLP (“Andersen”). As a condition of his employment, Edwards was required to execute a noncompetition agreement that prohibited his (1) “perform[ing] professional services” for 18 months post-termination on behalf
Grafton Partners LP v. Superior Court, 115 Cal. App. 4th 700, 9 Cal. Rptr. 3d 511 (2004)
Grafton Partners and related parties (Grafton) retained PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) to perform an independent audit on their accounting records. The parties’ engagement letter contained a predispute jury waiver whereby both parties agreed not to demand a trial by jury “in the unlikely event” that differences should arise between