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.
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.
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.
US Supreme Court takes appeal of case involving waiver of PAGA claims in arbitration agreements.
A PAGA lawsuit against the same employer is barred by claim preclusion if it covers the same time period and alleges the same violations as a prior PAGA lawsuit
The law regarding whether time spent commuting to and from work constitutes compensable “hours worked” is very factually driven.
California issues new decision on compensable nature of security searches.
What’s in a Name? Court of Appeal Green Lights Claim Against an Employer for Failure to Include Employer’s Legal Name on Wage Statements
California Pay Stubs Must Include Accurate Employer Name.
Court of Appeal issues new ruling on tipping law.
The Court of Appeal clarified for employers the proper method for calculating meal and rest break premium pay. In Ferra v. Lowes Hollywood Hotel, LLC, the court held that “regular rate of compensation,” as used in Labor Code Section 226.7 governing premium pay for missed meal and rest breaks, means an employee’s base hourly wage, not the "regular rate of pay," that is required to be used when paying overtime wages.
PAGA Claims can't be split between arbitration and court, even when underlying wages are sought as a penalty.
New Court of Appeal decision holds that employers are required to pay reporting time pay even if all an employee is required to do is call in to check if they actually need to work a shift.
Failure to pay final pay timely must be willful for liability.
Employer suffers major consequences for minor difference in employee handbook translation.
Court of Appeal holds employer liable for "negligent" inquiry into whether all wages owed were correctly paid.
Last week the California Supreme Court provided clarity to employers regarding how non-exempt employees who are paid bonuses should be paid.