In a split 2-1 decision that likely raises more questions than it answers, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals cast some doubt upon the ability of employers to implement mandatory arbitration agreements with their employees. In Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America v. Bonta, the Ninth Circuit
Articles Discussing General Workplace Issues in California.
After the announcement of President Biden’s COVID-19 Action Plan, employers across the country, including California started to consider how to implement vaccination and testing requirements, even ahead of clear guidance from the federal government.
California already has its own Emergency Temporary Standards (ETS) which were amended in June by Cal/OSHA.
The Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) only partially preempts California’s bar on mandatory arbitration agreements in employment, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has held, vacating the preliminary injunction that had been in place since early-2020 and enjoining enforcement of the law with respect to arbitration agreements governed by the FAA.
On Wednesday, a Ninth Circuit panel lifted an injunction that prevented California from enforcing a law that prohibited employers from requiring employees and applicants to arbitrate work-related claims. The case, Chamber of Commerce v. Bonta, will find itself before the U.S. Supreme Court in short order.
While California’s Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) is often compared to class actions, many of the rules and regulations governing class actions are not present. And applying considerations like manageability to PAGA claims has caused California trial courts much consternation.
However, recently the California Court of Appeal for the Second
The “Purge Rule,” retention schedules, and data breach risk. Littler Shareholder and core member of the firm’s Privacy Team, Kwabena Appenteng, explains what could be the most burdensome compliance requirements for employers.
The California legislature has wrapped up its annual legislative session, once again sending a number of employment and labor law bills to Governor Newsom’s desk. One of the most notable, and potentially revolutionary bills – AB 701 – seeks to regulate the use of employee “quotas” in warehouse distribution
In a case of first impression, last week, the Second District California Court of Appeal held that judges have inherent authority to limit, and even strike, unmanageable PAGA claims. Wesson v. Staples the Office Superstore, LLC, No. B302988, affirmed the trial court’s decision to strike PAGA claims alleging that Staples misclassified store managers because Staples’ defense could not be fairly litigated through methods common proof. The published portion of Wesson establishes, for the first time, that individual issues in PAGA claims, including employer’s defenses, must be tried fairly and efficiently. The decision offers a glimmer of hope for employers faced with unwieldy and costly PAGA litigation in the Golden State.
With the rise of multiple COVID variants, FDA approval of at least one vaccine, and now the federal government requiring that private employers mandate vaccinations, COVID-19 continues to infect California employers with a host of compliance hurdles, each one with increased costs, litigation exposure and employee morale concerns.
During this engaging and timely session, Partner and Co-Chair of CDF’s COVID Taskforce, Todd Wulffson, as well as Partner & CDF Blog Editorial Board member, Kimberly Jansen, will review up-to-the-minute compliance obligations, trends and best practices involving return to work, COVID testing/vaccination issues, and much more.
Topics covered during this webinar include:
-New Vaccine Mandates, Exemptions and Mandatory Testing
-State and Local Mask and Distancing Guidance
-Evolving Return-to-Work Issues and Concerns
-Managing Employee Concerns and Complaints
-Industry Best Practices Above and Beyond the New Laws to Reduce Liability and Exposure
Due to the topic, we have scheduled this webinar for one hour and 15 minutes, allotting for a 15-minute Q&A session at the end. Register today to hear how you can stay ahead of the constantly-evolving compliance requirements relating to COVID-19.
Certificates for CA MCLE, HRCI & SHRM pending.
Every court in California relies increasingly on remote video technology since the COVID-19 pandemic effectively closed courtrooms. California’s Judicial Council adopted temporary emergency rules to assist courts providing access to justice during the pandemic. As courts limited in-person hearings, remote proceedings became critical to the facilitation of civil litigation. At the center of these virtual proceedings is Senate Bill (SB) 241, a draft bill authored by Senator Thomas Umberg, D-Santa Ana to authorize:
This is the second in a series of articles about the implications of the California Privacy Rights Act for employers.
Companies that hire employees and engage independent contractors in California should brace for a significant slowdown in background checks that include criminal record searches in California state courts.1 This will result from the court of appeal’s opinion in All of Us or None v.
After six years of litigation, CDF Labor Law LLP’s victory is etched in stone after the California Supreme Court denied review of a Court of Appeal decision that
On August 31, 2021, Governor Newsom signed Senate Bill 26 (SB 26) which makes the provisions of the Fair Pay to Play Act (The Act) operative September 1, 2021, and makes the provisions applicable to the California Community Colleges.
Click here to continue reading on the California Workplace Law Blog.
Littler Shareholder and core Privacy Team member Zoe Argento discusses the extensive list of rights the CPRA confers on employees, independent contractors, and job applicants who reside in California. What is the scope of these rights, and what are employers’ obligations when responding to requests? Learn the answers to these questions