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.
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.
Recent Supreme Court decision in Groff v. DeJoy has brought renewed attention to the obligations employers face when dealing with religious accommodations, increasing the burden on employers to show they will be substantially affected by an employee's request.
A new California law makes it easier for employees to establish retaliation claims against their employers by creating a rebuttable presumption of retaliation if an employer takes an adverse action against an employee within 90 days of that employee engaging in a protected activity.
California's ongoing legal battle with Uber and Lyft highlights worker classification, consumer protection, and arbitration agreements, emphasizing the state's authority to pursue legal action despite existing arbitration agreements with drivers.
With Governor Newsom's approval of SB 235, California's discovery process undergoes substantial streamlining. This bill revises the California Code of Civil Procedure (2016.090) to align more closely with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, aiming to simplify legal discovery for employers and employees.
Explore the implications for employers of SB 525, which introduces a significant minimum wage increase to $25 an hour for healthcare workers in California.
Arce v. Southland Care Center underscores the importance for employers to uphold California labor laws on meal and rest breaks.
Learn about the crucial components of California's new Workplace Violence Prevention Plan (WVPP) and how to ensure your workplace meets the requirements.
Discover the impact SB 848: California's new reproductive loss leave law. Explore the implications and challenges this law presents, and how it may affect your workplace. Dive into the details of this crucial legislation, ensuring you're prepared for the changes ahead.
In this post, we delve into the essentials of California's sick leave laws, breaking down eligibility, accrual, exceptions, and the responsibilities of both employers and employees.
This past Tuesday, Gavin Newsom signed into law SB 365, a California bill which allows cases to continue in court even if a defendant appeals a denial of arbitration. Proponents argue it protects workers and consumers, while critics worry it may harm job prospects and could conflict with federal arbitration law.