The “Summer of PAGA” continued last week when the California Supreme Court ruled in Turrieta v. Lyft, Inc., Case No. S271721, that a plaintiff in a Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) action does not have standing to...more
As we wrote previously, last summer’s blockbuster decision in Adolph v. Uber Technologies, Inc., 14 Cal. 5th 1104 (2023) contained a notable silver lining. In ruling that a Private Attorneys General Act (“PAGA”) plaintiff’s...more
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
Last week, the California Supreme Court agreed to decide two unique questions with far-reaching implications for employer liability: (1) may an employer be held liable to an employee’s spouse when an employee contracts...more
The California Supreme Court has resolved an inconsistency that has divided the courts as to the proper evidentiary standard necessary to prove a whistleblower retaliation claim....more
2/10/2022
/ Anti-Retaliation Provisions ,
Burden of Proof ,
CA Supreme Court ,
California ,
Evidence ,
Labor Code ,
Labor Reform ,
Retaliation ,
State Labor Laws ,
Whistleblower Protection Policies ,
Whistleblowers