California Supreme Court

Not Providing Compliant Rest Breaks in California Could Break the Bank – New Clarifications from the State’s High Court

James McQuade, Stephanie Lee and Amanda MacDonaldPosted on January 24, 2017

Recently, in Augustus v. ABM Security Services, Inc., the California Supreme Court upheld a $90 million award of statutory damages, interest, and penalties against an employer who required employees to remain on-call during rest periods, despite no evidence showing that any employee’s rest period was ever actually interrupted. This holding has significant implications statewide, and employers in California should promptly review their rest break policies to ensure full compliance. READ MORE →

California: Making Arbitration Great Again

Julia Riechert and Jessica R. L. JamesPosted on August 23, 2016

California’s resistance to the longstanding federal policy favoring arbitration frequently results in public expressions of frustration by the justices of the U.S. Supreme Court. In over five years since the Supreme Court’s broad directives in AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, 563 U.S. 333 (2011), recent California decisions, including our recent coverage of the California Supreme Court’s holding in Sandquist v. Lebo, Case No. S220812, 2016 WL 4045008 (Cal. July 28, 2016), suggest that the state’s stubbornness may be waning, at least for the time being. The following summarizes key decisions that diverge from California’s traditional resistance to arbitration and which every employer should have in their arsenal of tools.

California Supreme Court Holds “No Universal Rule” Exists When Deciding Who Should Determine Availability of Classwide Arbitration

Andrew LivingstonPosted on August 19, 2016

On July 28, 2016, the California Supreme Court added to the ever-changing body of case law regarding classwide arbitration when it held that “no universal rule” exists regarding who (the court or the arbitrator) should decide whether classwide arbitration is permissible under an arbitration agreement, and that this issue must be decided on a case-by-case basis.

Down The Arbitration Rabbit Hole: Ninth Circuit Refuses To Enforce Employee’s Waiver Of PAGA Claims

Joe LiburtPosted on October 7, 2015

On September 28, 2015, the Ninth Circuit held in Shukri Sakkab v. Luxottica Retail North America, Inc. that the FAA does not preempt the rule that the California Supreme Court enunciated in Iskanian v. CLS Transportation that California law bars the waiver of Private Attorneys General Act (“PAGA”) claims. As a result, California employers will likely see an increase in the filing of PAGA cases as employees use them as a vehicle for representative actions outside of arbitration.

California Supreme Court May Limit The Scope Of PAGA Plaintiffs’ Access to Statewide Discovery

Joe LiburtPosted on September 9, 2015

The California Supreme Court is poised to clarify what limits may apply to burdensome discovery demands in litigation under California’s Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (“PAGA”), which allows employees to bring non-class representative actions against employers on behalf of themselves and other “aggrieved employees” for alleged violations of the Labor Code.

Prognosis Negative: You’re Not Immune to Company Policy Under California Leave Law

Joe Liburt and Julia RiechertPosted on February 10, 2015

In Richey v. Autonation, Inc., issued January 29, 2015, the California Supreme Court reinstated an arbitration award against the plaintiff and confirmed that employers retain the right to terminate employees who violate company policy even while they are on a leave of absence under the California Family Rights Act (CFRA).

High Court Says “Let It Ride”; Limo Company Fails to Flag Down Enough Justices to Hear PAGA Carve-out Case

Renee Phillips and Michael DisotellPosted on January 27, 2015

On January 20, the United States Supreme Court denied certiorari in CLS Transportation Los Angeles LLC v. Iskanian, leaving intact a decision by the California Supreme Court holding that representative Private Attorney General Act (PAGA) claims cannot be waived in arbitration agreements. Enacted in 2004, PAGA deputizes private citizens to seek penalties on behalf of the state by bringing representative suits for workplace violations.

Including PAGA Representative Action Waivers in Arbitration Agreements Post-Iskanian

Editorial BoardPosted on October 28, 2014

After the California Supreme Court’s recent decision in Iskanian v. CLS Transportation, which held that PAGA representative action waivers are unenforceable under California law, employers have struggled with whether to retain such waivers in their arbitration agreements. The answer to whether such waivers should be retained is not as straightforward as one might expect.

Domino’s Delivers Key Ruling in Favor of Franchisors

Andrew Livingston, Tracy Scheidtmann and David B. SmithPosted on September 30, 2014

The California Supreme Court recently issued an important victory for franchisors, finding that a franchisor does not stand in an employment or agency relationship with the franchisee and its employees for purposes of holding the franchisor vicariously liable.

Seeking Credit for Deferred Commissions? You Might Get Declined

Julia RiechertPosted on July 22, 2014

Last week, the California Supreme Court issued its decision in Peabody v. Time Warner Cable, Inc., deciding that employers may not apply commission payments to earlier pay periods for the purposes of establishing that an employee meets the minimum wage component under the commissioned employee exemption.

Employment Law and Litigation