California Employment Law Blog

In Lizbeth Balderas v. Fresh Start Harvesting, Inc., the California Court of Appeal reversed a lower court ruling, affirming that under PAGA, employees can pursue representative actions for labor violations without an individual claim, challenging the U.S. Supreme Court's interpretation in Viking River Cruises.

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in Fli-Lo Falcon, LLC v. Amazon.com, Inc. has affirmed the enforceability of arbitration agreements in commercial contracts between businesses, clarifying that the Federal Arbitration Act's "transportation worker exemption" does not apply to business entities.

In Gautam Shah v. Skillz Inc. (2024), the California Court of Appeal determined that stock options do not constitute "wages" under the California Labor Code, a decision with significant implications for the technology and startup sectors where such options are a key part of compensation packages.

Assembly Bill (AB) 2751 in California seeks to grant workers a "right to disconnect" by mandating clear work hour definitions and limiting after-hours communications. Critics, however, worry it may lead to inflexibility for both employers and employees.

The California Industrial Welfare Commission (IWC) sets labor standards, including Wage Order No. 16-2001 for sectors like construction and mining. In George Huerta v. CSI Electrical Contractors (2024), the California Supreme Court ruled that security checks, certain intra-premises travel, and on-site meal breaks count as compensable "hours worked," underscoring employer control as a key factor.

Ariana Miles v. Kirkland (2024) underscores the complexities of class action certification in employment law, emphasizing the need for shared employee grievances and consistent enforcement of legally compliant employer policy.

Ortiz v. Randstad (2024) clarifies the FAA's transportation worker exemption, affirming that warehouse workers involved in interstate commerce are exempt from arbitration, emphasizing the role-specific duties play in determining exemption eligibility.

California's Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) allows for "mixed motive" cases where disability need not be the sole cause but a significant factor in employment decisions. Lin v. Kaiser Foundation Hospitals (2023) exemplifies the application of "mixed motive" analysis, demonstrating the challenges and nuances in distinguishing between legitimate business decisions and discriminatory practices, and emphasizing the importance of clear documentation and accommodation in the workplace.

In Atalla v. Rite Aid Corporation (2023), the Court of Appeal found no employer liability for a supervisor's sexually inappropriate texts and photos sent to an employee outside of work hours. The court also dismissed a claim of constructive termination, citing the employer's swift action in terminating the harasser and inviting the employee back to work.

In a recent case, the California Court of Appeal interpreted Section 1281.98 of the California Arbitration Act, emphasizing the 30-day deadline for receiving arbitration fees. The court ruled that fees must be both sent and received within 30 days after the due date, highlighting the importance of timely payments to avoid material breach of arbitration agreements under California law.

In Hittle v. City of Stockton, former fire chief Ronald Hittle claimed religious discrimination, citing remarks by the deputy city manager. Despite Hittle's attempts to use the comments as evidence, the Ninth Circuit upheld the city's summary judgment, emphasizing the insufficiency of the remarks in meeting the criteria to defeat summary judgment and the city's valid reasons for termination based on Hittle's job performance.

The Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act, effective March 3, 2022, invalidates prior arbitration agreements for sexual assault or harassment disputes. In Kader v. Southern California Medical Center, Inc. (2024), a California Court of Appeal clarified that a "dispute" arises when a party asserts a right, claim, or demand, not when the alleged misconduct actually occurred.

Unconscionability renders contracts unenforceable due to unfairness, involving procedural and substantive elements. In employment arbitration, as seen in Hasty v. AAA, unconscionability is crucial for validity, necessitating the need for conscionable drafting by California employers to ensure legal compliance.

Under section 1281.97, if an employer fails to pay arbitration fees within 30 days of the due date, it constitutes a "material breach," leading to the forfeiture of arbitration rights. In Suarez v. Superior Court (2024), an employer sought to evade section 1281.97 through alternative filing requirements. The Court of Appeal dismissed the employer's arguments, emphasizing the importance of timely payment for employers to uphold arbitration agreements.

In Demarinis v. Heritage Bank of Commerce (2023), employees, initially under an arbitration agreement, grappled with complexities tied to PAGA, arbitration waivers, and "poison pill" clauses. This case emphasizes the need for meticulous drafting of arbitration clauses, underscoring the importance of specificity in waiver provisions, as the inclusion of a "poison pill" can lead to an entire arbitration contract being deemed unenforceable.

The recent California Supreme Court decision in Estrada v. Royalty Carpet Mills, Inc. has resolved a split among California Courts of Appeal, particularly regarding Private Attorney General Act claims (PAGA), stating that trial courts cannot dismiss PAGA claims based solely on manageability concerns.

In 2024, the focus on California’s employment landscape will center around the Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA), with the proposed California Fair Pay and Employer Accountability Act poised to replace it pending the November election.

Snoeck v. Exaktime demonstrates the substantial influence of incivility on attorney fees, as the court upheld a 40% reduction due to the plaintiff's counsel's uncivil behavior during trial and on appeal. This establishes a precedent, underscoring the need for legal professionals to maintain respect and civility within the California legal system to avoid significant financial consequences.

Discover the upcoming transformations in the California employment landscape for 2024, ranging from minimum wage adjustments and paid sick leave modifications to enhanced protections for off-the-job cannabis use.

Learn more about the changes brought about by California's Assembly Bill No. 594 (AB 594), which will empower public prosecutors to independently pursue civil or criminal actions for Labor Code violations.

California's fast-food landscape to undergo a major transformation in 2024 as AB 257 yields to AB 1228, introducing not only a $20 minimum wage but also a redefined Fast Food Council.

SB 525, signed into law in California, will establish a tiered minimum wage schedule to increase pay for healthcare workers based on the nature, size, and structure of the employer's healthcare facility.

Arce v. Ensign Group, Inc. underscores the importance of PAGA compliance for California employers and employees, emphasizing the need for accurate wage statements, prompt reporting of labor violations, and the significance of evidence in summary judgment proceedings.

California recently enacted SB 699 and AB 1076, laws that expand the state's prohibition on most non-compete agreements . These laws prohibit employers from including non-compete clauses in employment contracts and mandate notifying current and certain former employees hired after January 2022 about the invalidity of any such clauses, with new penalties in place for violations.

SB 497, the Equal Pay and Anti-Retaliation Protection Act, amends Labor Code sections to create a rebuttable presumption of retaliation when employees are disciplined or terminated within 90 days of protected activity, simplifying the process of proving retaliation.