|
|
|
 State Employment Law Articles
Report Link CLASS ACTION LITE?: The California Supreme Court Allows PAGA Wage and Hour Actions to Proceed as Representative Actions.Littler Mendelson, P.C. - August 06, 2009 In Arias v. Superior Court (Angelo Dairy)1 (2009) the California Supreme Court held that an "aggrieved employee" may bring an action for civil penalties on behalf of other employees in a representative action pursuant to the California Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (PAGA) without complying with California class action procedure. Unfortunately, the court in Arias did not elaborate on the nature of a PAGA representative action, leaving open questions of how PAGA representative actions can be tried or settled. Without such guidance, California employers may expect to see plaintiffs bringing more PAGA representative actions, either by themselves or as companions to class actions, in which they argue that such class action due process safeguards as "typicality" or "predominance" are no longer relevant. Report Link California Court of Appeal Rejects Trial Court's "Rubber Stamp" on Class Action Settlement.Jackson Lewis LLP - July 13, 2009 Vacating an order approving a settlement of a class action for alleged unpaid overtime, various Labor Code violations, and unfair business practices, the California Court of Appeal has found that the trial court lacked sufficient information to make an informed evaluation of the fairness of the settlement. Report Link California Supreme Court: No Class Action Requirements for Private Attorneys General Act Claims.Jackson Lewis LLP - July 01, 2009 The California Supreme Court has allowed an employee to proceed with his claim to recover penalties on behalf of himself and non-party employees under the California Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (“PAGA”) without satisfying class certification requirements. Arias v. Superior Court, No. S155965 (June 29, 2009). However, the Court ruled that the plaintiff cannot bring claims in a representative capacity under California’s unfair competition law without meeting class certification requirements. Report Link "Bounty Hunters" Lose Their State "Badge" as California Court of Appeal Clarifies Several PAGA IssuesLittler Mendelson, P.C. - February 26, 2009 The California Court of Appeal recently decided to publish its decision in Deleon v. Verizon Wireless, which provides some much-needed guidance in interpreting the California Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (PAGA), California Labor Code sections 2898, et seq. By holding that the State of California is not required to approve a class action settlement agreement in order for the class members to be able to waive PAGA claims, the court in Deleon took a significant step in clarifying the nature of a PAGA action. Report Link California Court Orders Dismissal of Class Action Based on Convictions Inquiry on Job Application.Jackson Lewis LLP - December 26, 2008 Plaintiffs representing a putative class of 135,000 job applicants could not recover $26 million in damages for an allegedly “illegal” question on the employer’s employment application which sought information about prior criminal convictions, a California Court of Appeal has ruled. Report Link Gentry v. Superior Court: California Supreme Court Sets a High Bar for Enforcing Class Arbitration Waiver Clauses.Littler Mendelson, P.C. - September 20, 2007 By a closely-divided 4-3 vote and over a vigorous dissent, the California Supreme Court broke new ground regarding the validity of class action waiver clauses in employment arbitration agreements. While upholding the validity of such clauses, the court created a new standard that may create formidable obstacles to enforcement as applied to overtime class action claims. Report Link Employers May Face Increased Liability Following California Appeals Court Ruling on Class Actions.Jackson Lewis LLP - August 02, 2007 The California Court of Appeal has increased the potential liability to employers in wage and hour class actions in a decision on a procedural issue involving class certification of wage and penalty claims under the California Labor Code. Specifically, the Court ruled that representative claims for unpaid wages brought under the Unfair Competition Law ("UCL") must be brought as class actions under Section 382 of the Code of Civil Procedure, but claims for penalties under the Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act ("PAGA") do not. Arias v. Superior Court, No. C054185 (Cal. Ct. App., July 24, 2007). For California employers, this opinion underscores the need to conduct periodic audits of wage and hour practices to limit potential liability for wage and hour claims. Report Link California SC Approves Disclosure Of Potential Class Members' Personal Information Without Consent.Jackson Lewis LLP - January 30, 2007 The California Supreme Court ruled in a consumer class action case that affirmative consent of a potential class member was not required before disclosure could occur and that notice and a mere opportunity to object were sufficient to protect a potential class member’s privacy rights. This January 25, 2007 decision in Pioneer Electronics v. Superior Court (Olmstead), S133794, may have significant implications for California employers involved in class action litigation brought by current or former employees. Report Link The California Supreme Court Leaves a Window of Opportunity for Class Action Waiver Clauses in Employment Arbitration Agreements.Littler Mendelson, P.C. - June 30, 2005 On June 27, 2005, the California Supreme Court issued a long-awaited decision in Discover Bank v. Superior Court, Case No. S113725, and held that, “at least under some circumstances,” class action and class arbitration waiver clauses in consumer contracts are not enforceable. Although Discover Bank may not represent the best of all possible results for employers, the California Supreme Court left open a window of opportunity for the use and enforcement of class action and class arbitration waiver clauses in the employment context. Report Link California Supreme Court Upholds Grant of Class Certification in Wage and Hour Class Action Case: Sav-on Drug Stores, Inc. v. Superior Court.Littler Mendelson, P.C. - August 30, 2004 California will likely remain a hotbed of class action litigation against employers in light of the California Supreme Court's unanimous opinion in Sav-on Drug Stores, Inc. v. Superior Court (Rocher), S106718, issued on August 26, 2004. Report Link New California Supreme Court Decision Promotes Employment Dispute Class Actions.Jackson Lewis LLP - August 27, 2004 The long-awaited decision in Sav-On Drugs v. Superior Court (Rocher) overruled a court of appeal decision and found the trial court had not abused its discretion in certifying a class of operating managers and assistant managers employed by the drug store chain in California.
|
Count and Sub-TopicsArticles Found: 11NO SUBTOPICSEmployment Law Seminars
Employment Law 101 for HR Professionals
Las Vegas
March 23, 2010 Fisher & PhillipsCalifornia Legally Required Sexual Harassment Training: It's Never Too Late To ComplyNewport Beach
March 23, 2010 Fisher & PhillipsCalifornia Legally Required Sexual Harassment Training: It's Never Too Late To ComplySan Francisco
March 23, 2010 Fisher & Phillips2010 Public Sexual Harassment Training for supervisors and managers.Glendale
March 23, 2010 Ballard Rosenberg2010 Employment Law UpdateSan Jose
March 23, 2010 LittlerHow to Prepare a Response to a DFEH/EEOC ChargeWebinar
March 23, 2010 Shaw ValenzaTOP 10 TIPS FOR CREATING A BLOGGING, SOCIAL MEDIA AND CELL PHONE POLICYOnline
March 23, 2010 HR Learning Center LLCNegotiating Your Business to the TopOrlando
March 23, 2010 Ford & HarrisonCalifornia Legally Required Sexual Harassment Training: It's Never Too Late To ComplySan Diego
March 24, 2010 Fisher & PhillipsEmployment Law Breakfast Briefings`Kenner
March 24, 2010 Fisher & Phillips |
|
| ||
|
Terms of Use
|
Privacy
|
Advertising
|
About
|
Contact
|
For Law Firms
|
Partners
Copyright © 2010 elinfonet.com, llc.
The use of this site, and the terms and conditions for our providing information, is governed by our Terms of Use, including the disclaimers contained therein. By using this site, you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Use and that you accept and will be bound by the terms thereof.
This site is designed for lawyers concentrating in employment law and human resource professionals who specialize in employee relations. As more fully set forth in the terms of use, the information provided on or through this site is for general information purposes; it is not a determination of your legal rights, nor your responsibilities under the law. None of the information contained on this site is, or should be construed as, legal advice. The information should not be relied upon for legal advice. We are not engaged in the practice of law and no attorney-client relationship is being created. Any information communicated to any lawyer via this site does not have the confidentiality protection of the attorney/client privilege. If you are seeking legal advice, find a qualified lawyer in your area. If you need help finding a lawyer, call your local, county or state bar association. All logos and trademarks on this site are property of their respective owners. | ||
Federal Article Feeds