As we previously reported, California recently enacted AB 1076, which reinforces the state’s broad statutory ban on noncompete agreements. The law took effect on January 1, 2024, and expressly codifies Edwards v. Arthur...more
In Arias v. Superior Court, 46 Cal. 4th 969 (2009), the California Supreme Court ruled that Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) actions need not satisfy class action requirements, and in the fourteen years since, PAGA...more
On July 17, 2023, approximately one year after the U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Viking River Cruises, the California Supreme Court issued its highly-anticipated decision in Adolph v. Uber Technologies. The Court...more
7/21/2023
/ Arbitration ,
Arbitration Agreements ,
California ,
Employees ,
Employer Liability Issues ,
Employment Litigation ,
Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) ,
SCOTUS ,
State Labor Laws ,
Viking River Cruises ,
Viking River Cruises Inc v Moriana
Last week, the California Supreme Court unanimously ruled that employers are not liable to nonemployees who contract COVID-19 from employee household members that bring the virus home from their workplace, because “[a]n...more
As we have written here on multiple occasions, the Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) disadvantages employers in several ways. Despite permitting recovery similar to what might be obtained in a class action, class...more
On May 10, 2023, the California Supreme Court heard oral argument in Adolph v. Uber Technologies, Inc., a closely watched case that will decide whether a Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) plaintiff loses standing to pursue...more