In employment litigation, it is commonly assumed that plaintiffs (claimants in arbitration) will initiate the demand for arbitration. Yet, the plaintiffs in Arzate v. Ace American Ins. Co., challenged this common practice. ((2025) 108 Cal. App. 5th 1191.)(more…)
Blog
California Appeals Court Confirms Employees Cannot Avoid Their Obligation to Arbitrate By Pursuing a “Representative Only” PAGA Claim
When litigating wage and hour class and representative actions in California there is a tension between an employee’s (and the employee’s attorneys’) wish to sue on behalf of all employees (a class or representative action) and an employer’s wish to resolve disputes with the specific employee who alleges to have been aggrieved (an individual action). There are various tools used by either side in this battle, including California Code of Civil Procedure section 382 (California’s class action requirements), California’s Private Attorneys General Act (“PAGA”) and the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”).(more…)
Federal Court Strikes Down Department of Labor’s New Rule Raising the Minimum Salary Level for Exempt Employees Under the FLSA
In 2024 the U. S. Department of Labor (the “DOL”) implemented a new rule under the Federal Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) regulating the minimum wage for exempt employees. The new rule (the “2024 Rule”) increased the minimum salary level for exempt workers from $684 to $844 per week (or from $35,568 annually to $43,888 annually) starting July 1, 2024.(more…)
The California Supreme Court Upholds Proposition 22 Ruling — Uber, Lyft and DoorDash Drivers Remain Classified as Independent Contractors
On July 25, 2024, the California Supreme Court upheld Proposition 22 (“Prop. 22”) in a major win for gig-economy companies Uber, Lyft and DoorDash. This ruling marks the end of a multi-year legal battle over Prop. 22 raised by a group of drivers and a major labor union that challenged Prop. 22 as unconstitutional, arguing that it interferes with lawmakers’ authority over matters of workers’ compensation.(more…)
Employment Law Update for 2025
As employers prepare to update their policies and practices for 2025, there are a number of new laws to consider. Unless otherwise noted, the laws discussed below will be effective as of January 1, 2025. (more…)
California Supreme Court Clarifies Scope of Severance Analysis for Arbitration Agreements
On July 15, 2024, the California Supreme Court issued a new ruling further defining the contours of California law regarding the interpretation and enforcement of arbitration agreements. In Ramirez v. Charter Communications, Inc., the Court emphasized that there is no bright line, quantitative rule governing when a court may sever unconscionable terms, as opposed to when it must void the entire contract.(more…)
California Supreme Court to Decide Fate of Waiver of Arbitration When Fees Are Paid Late
The California Supreme Court (“Supreme Court”) granted review of Hohenshelt v. Superior Court (2024) 99 Cal.App.5th 1319, which held the defendant’s payment of arbitration fees after thirty (30) days from issuance of the invoice entitled the plaintiff to withdraw from arbitration. The Supreme Court will decide whether the state law that permits waiver of arbitration when fees are paid after thirty (30) days is pre-empted by the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”).(more…)
New Guidance from the United States Department of Labor Regarding Independent Contractor Classification
On January 10, 2024, the Wage and Hour Division of the United States Department of Labor (“DOL”) issued a new “Final Rule” addressing analysis for classifying workers as either independent contractors or employees under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”). The Final Rule went into effect on March 11, 2024.(more…)
The U.S. Supreme Court Decision in Muldrow v. City of St. Louis Lowers the Standard for Employees Challenging Job Transfers under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
On April 17, 2024, the Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision in Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, holding that an employee alleging a discriminatory job transfer must show that the transfer inflicted “some harm with respect to an identifiable term or condition of employment,” but, that such harm “need not be significant” to violate Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”). Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, Missouri, 601 U.S. —-, at *2 (2024). (more…)
The Federal Trade Commission Bans Noncompete Agreements Nationwide
On April 23, 2024, the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) issued a final rule banning noncompete agreements in the United States, effective September 4, 2024. Immediately after the FTC approved the final rule, multiple entities filed lawsuits challenging the rule and seeking injunctions to postpone the effective date. Currently it is unclear if and when the rule will go into effect, but employers should be prepared for the rule to become effective.(more…)