In Ibarra v. Chuy & Sons Labor, Inc., the California Court of Appeal clarified that PAGA prelitigation notices do not need to specifically define "aggrieved employees" but must include sufficient facts and theories about the alleged violations.
The California Supreme Court, in Turrieta v. Lyft, Inc., ruled that PAGA plaintiffs do not have the right to intervene in another plaintiff's ongoing PAGA action with overlapping claims.
California's labor landscape is set to change significantly with a new agreement to reform the Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA). The reforms include capping penalties for employers who promptly rectify issues, imposing higher penalties for malicious violations, increasing the portion of penalties allocated to employees from 25% to 35%, expanding the range of labor code sections that can be cured, and requiring employees to personally suffer labor violations to bring claims.
The Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) grants California employees the authority to pursue civil penalties for labor violations. The recent Ninth Circuit case, Johnson v. Lowe's Home Centers, LLC (2024), underscores that employees may be compelled to arbitrate individual PAGA claims, while still maintaining the standing to pursue their non-individual claims in court.
The California Court of Appeal's decision in Hernandez v. Sohnen Enterprises clarifies that the FAA preempts California Code of Civil Procedure Section 1281.97, which allows employees to withdraw from arbitration if the employer fails to pay fees on time, when the agreement explicitly states it is governed by the FAA.
The California Supreme Court ruled in Naranjo v. Spectrum Security Services, Inc. that meal break premiums are wages that must be reported on wage statements, but employers acting in good faith, despite being mistaken, are shielded from penalties for "knowing and intentional" violations under Section 226.
In Angel Mondragon v. Sunrun Inc., the California Court of Appeal affirmed the necessity for precise language in arbitration agreements, upholding the exclusion of all PAGA claims from arbitration based on the agreement's explicit terms.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
In Harstein v. Hyatt Corp., the Ninth Circuit clarifies that temporary layoffs without definite return dates trigger immediate payment of accrued vacation pay.
California employers should be aware of recent Court of Appeal decision LaCour v. Marshalls of California, LLC, et. al., as they may now face further PAGA litigation, despite a prior settlement of a previous PAGA claim.
Adolph v. Uber clarifies that employees compelled to arbitrate individual PAGA claims can still pursue non-individual claims, affirming their rights to enforce labor laws.
New section of California Labor Code will make it unlawful for employers in California to ask applicants about their pay history.
New amendments to California Labor Code 98.7 Make it Easier for Employees to Prove Unlawful Retaliation.
There is no charge for the initial phone consultation. Fill out the contact form on the website with detailed information about your circumstances and we will schedule a telephone appointment.
