The deadline for filing the first year of Massachusetts EEO-1 pay data reports is February 1, 2025, but covered employers are still waiting for Massachusetts to publish guidance on this requirement. This means that with less than one month before the deadline, there is no official guidance on what information
Articles Discussing Labor And Employment Law In All Fifty Us States And Puerto Rico.
NEW ILLINOIS EMPLOYMENT LAWS FOR 2025 AND BEYOND: What every employer must learn
The Illinois Legislature was busy in 2024, passing a slew of new employment laws and amendments to existing laws, only one of which in any manner affirmatively helps employers. This article summarizes the bills that were signed into law by Governor J. B. Pritzker in 2024 and what every employer must learn now to avoid claims and litigation down the road.
An Important PAGA Development Related to Arbitration Agreements
Arbitration agreements can be an important tool for employers. In 2022, the United States Supreme Court decided in Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana that arbitration agreements could include waivers of claims under the California
New Minimum Wage Takes Effect in Boulder, Colorado
The City of Boulder has enacted its own local minimum wage ordinance, which took effect January 1, 2025, setting the city’s minimum wage at $15.57 per hour. The new law adds another challenge to multi-jurisdiction compliance for employers as the city’s minimum wage is higher than the State of Colorado’s,
What is Automated Decisionmaking Technology (ADMT) under CCPA proposed regulations?
On November 8, 2024, the California Privacy Protection Agency (CPPA) voted to advance proposed regulations concerning automated decisionmaking technology.
New York Employers – Key 2025 Employment Law Updates
Employers in the Empire State face several significant changes in 2025. These legal developments impact everything from sick leave to minimum wage. Here are the key takeaways for employers.
New York Enacts Immediate Updates to Breach Notification Law
Governor Kathy Hochul signed several bills last month designed to strengthen protections for the personal data of consumers. One of those bills (S2659B)
New York Launches Initiative to Minimize Injuries Among Warehouse Employees
On December 21, 2024, Governor Kathy Hochul signed into law the Warehouse Worker Injury Reduction Program (S5081C/A8907A), requiring certain warehouse employers in New York to prepare and implement formal injury reduction programs that identify and minimize the risks of musculoskeletal injuries to their employees.
Last Ride For “Headless” PAGA Actions
By: Last Ride For “Headless” PAGA Actions
By: Last Ride For “Headless” PAGA Actions
Yesterday, the California Court of Appeal in Leeper v. Shipt, Inc., held that because every PAGA action necessarily includes an “individual PAGA claim” a PAGA plaintiff cannot avoid arbitration by asserting purely representative PAGA claim on behalf of other allegedly aggrieved employees (i.e., a “headless” PAGA action). Accordingly, the Court of Appeal concluded that the trial court must order Leeper’s “individual PAGA claim to arbitration” and must stay the litigation in accordance with California Code of Civil Procedure section 1281.4. We previously posted about California Employers’ Fight Against “Headless” PAGA Actions like the one at issue in Leeper. The Leeper decision should put an end to it.
The underlying lawsuit involved a single PAGA cause of action, which Leeper purported to bring “on a representative, non-individual basis” and through which she sought to recover “non-individual civil penalties.” In her complaint, Leeper addressed her arbitration agreement by asserting, “Because [Leeper] alleges only non-individual PAGA claims on a representative basis, Shipt cannot compel them to arbitrat[ion].” Like many (if not all) other plaintiffs seeking to litigate a “headless” PAGA action, Leeper relied on the Court of Appeal’s decision in Balderas v. Fresh Start to support her argument PAGA plaintiffs may disclaim their “individual PAGA claim,” avoid arbitration, and proceed with litigating a purely “representative PAGA claim” in court.
In Leeper, the Court of Appeal explained that the unambiguous text of the PAGA statute authorizes only claims for civil penalties brought by the employee plaintiff “and other current or former employees.” Further, the court explained that Balderas does not support the position that a plaintiff may properly maintain a purely representative PAGA claim because Balderas “did not have occasion to discuss, did not discuss, and its holding does not address, whether a plaintiff may carve out an individual PAGA claim from a PAGA action.”
The distinction between Leeper and Balderas is critical, as both decisions were published by the California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District. Undoubtedly, PAGA plaintiffs will argue Leeper is not binding because it creates a “split of authority” with Balderas. But trial courts will not likely take the bait.
Leeper specifically addresses and rejects the argument that PAGA plaintiffs may properly disclaim the arbitrable, individual components of their PAGA action to avoid arbitration. Balderas held that trial courts may not dismiss a PAGA lawsuit brought by an allegedly “aggrieved employee” who does not specifically assert an individual claim. Both decisions can and do coexist within the post-Viking River framework of PAGA jurisprudence. Generally, an “aggrieved employee” has standing to maintain a PAGA action even if it does not specifically assert an individual claim (Balderas), but that PAGA action nonetheless includes an “individual PAGA claim” that may be subject to an arbitration agreement (Leeper). Because there is no actual split of authority on the issue, the Leeper decision should bind all California trial courts.
If you have any questions about this blog post, please contact the authors Corey Cabral and Sander van der Heide or your favorite CDF attorney. We will continue to monitor the evolving PAGA legal landscape, so if you haven’t already, subscribe to CDF’s California Labor & Employment Law Blog to ensure you don’t miss out on future posts.
City of Madison, Wisconsin Amends its Equal Opportunities Ordinance Regulating Arrest and Conviction Record Discrimination
The Wisconsin Fair Employment Act (WFEA) prohibits employers from discriminating against applicants and employees on the basis of their arrest and conviction records. Generally, an employer cannot make decisions based on an arrest or conviction record unless the crimes “substantially relate” to the circumstances of the job at issue.
Capitol Gains: California’s Legislative Highlights for 2025
California’s legislature covered a wide array of labor and employment law topics in the 2024 legislative session. The laws discussed below were signed into law by Governor Newsom and will become effective on January 1, 2025, unless otherwise noted. This Insight includes highlights of some of the new laws affecting
California to Ban Subminimum Wage for Disabled Workers
California Law For decades, California has allowed employers to pay intellectually or developmentally disabled workers a subminimum wage in certain settings. Currently, disabled workers employed through a “sheltered” disability program are paid from $3 to $14
California Supreme Court Cases Employers Should Watch in 2025
The California Supreme Court issued several important decisions in 2024 about issues such as the application of PAGA to public employees and the
New Illinois Law Prohibiting Employment Discrimination Against Caregivers to Take Effect January 1, 2025
Employment discrimination against individuals with or perceived to have family caregiving responsibilities will soon be unlawful in Illinois under a law set to take effect on January 1, 2025.
Employee Choice: Forfeiture-for-Competition, the Seventh Circuit’s Questions, and Delaware’s Answer
In response to two questions certified by the 7th Circuit, the Delaware Supreme Court clarified that forfeiture-for-competition provisions in employment agreements are subject to a looser review standard.