On August 1, 2024, the California Supreme Court issued a decision in Turrieta v. Lyft that substantially narrows the authority of PAGA litigants to intervene in overlapping PAGA actions. The Supreme Court’s ruling confirms...more
On Monday, the Ninth Circuit vacated a judgment for Grubhub, Inc. and against a former food delivery driver, Raef Lawson, who claimed that he was misclassified as an independent contractor when he performed food delivery...more
9/23/2021
/ ABC Test ,
Appeals ,
California ,
Class Action ,
Employment Litigation ,
GrubHub ,
Hiring & Firing ,
Independent Contractors ,
Minimum Wage ,
Misclassification ,
Over-Time ,
Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) ,
Reimbursements ,
Vacated ,
Wage and Hour
On September 9, 2021, California’s Court of Appeal issued an important decision in Wesson v. Staples The Office Superstore, LLC (“Wesson”), holding that trial courts have discretion to strike claims brought under the Private...more
On July 15, 2021, the California Supreme Court issued a decision in Ferra v. Loews Hollywood Hotel, LLC which was long-awaited but was ultimately highly disappointing to employers.
In sum, the Court held that when...more
A former Wal-Mart employee had his $102 million verdict overturned in a recent win for California employers. Roderick Magadia, the former employee, brought a class action and Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act (“PAGA”)...more
On October 9, 2019, the Second Appellate District of the California Court of Appeal issued a decision clarifying the rate of pay at which an employer must pay meal period, rest break, and recovery period premiums. More...more
On February 4, 2019, the California Court of Appeal, Second District issued a 2-1 decision in Ward v. Tilly’s, Inc. in which it held employees must be given “reporting time pay” under Wage Order No. 7-2001 when an employer...more
On December 10, 2018, a California Appellate Court published its decision in Donohue v. AMN Services, LLC, affirming class-wide summary judgment for the employer. The court’s decision in this wage and hour case presents some...more
In AHMC Healthcare, Inc. v. Superior Court, the California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Four, extended a prior line of California cases holding that California law follows federal law with respect to...more
The California Court of Appeals recently decided a new case potentially expanding the scope and impact of Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) claims brought by an employee against his employer. In Huff v. Securitas Security...more
In Esparza v. KS Industries, L.P., 2017 WL 3276363 (2017), the Fifth District Court of Appeal recently clarified the arbitrability of certain claims brought under the Private Attorneys General Act (“PAGA”). Previously, in...more
The California Supreme Court issued its long awaited ruling in Williams v. Superior Court, in which it clarified the scope of discovery in actions brought under the Private Attorneys General Act of 2004, Labor Code § 2698 et...more
7/21/2017
/ CA Supreme Court ,
Class Action ,
Discovery ,
Employment Litigation ,
Invasion of Privacy ,
Marshalls ,
Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) ,
Rest and Meal Break ,
Retailers ,
Undue Burden ,
Wage and Hour
On November 22, 2016, a federal court in the Eastern District of Texas issued a preliminary injunction blocking the Department of Labor from enforcing new regulations that would have drastically reduced the number of white...more
11/28/2016
/ Barack Obama ,
Congressional Intent ,
Department of Labor (DOL) ,
Exempt-Employees ,
Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) ,
Final Rules ,
Lack of Authority ,
Minimum Salary ,
Non-Exempt Employees ,
Over-Time ,
Preliminary Injunctions ,
Secretary of Labor ,
Standard Duties Test ,
Trump Administration ,
Wage and Hour ,
White-Collar Exemptions
On November 13, 2014, the Second District Court of Appeal, Division One, issued a decision in Walgreen Co. Overtime Cases. The opinion explains the meaning of Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Superior Court as it applies to the...more
On July 14, 2014, the California Supreme Court held in Peabody v. Time Warner Cable, Inc. that employees qualify for the California “commissioned employee” exemption in a pay period only if they receive “earnings [that]...more
On May 20, 2014, the First District Court of Appeal in Jong v. Kaiser Foundation Hospitals, issued a decision affirming the summary judgment granted as to one of the individual class representatives in a putative class action...more
Do you hear that? . . . . It is the wailing and moaning of plaintiff’s attorneys across the country.
On June 20, 2013, in a 5-3 decision (Sotomayor recused herself), the United States Supreme Court issued a...more
On Tuesday, the Ninth Circuit decided Leyva v. Medline Industries, Inc., reversing an order denying class certification in a wage and hour case. The decision represents the first interpretation from the Ninth Circuit of the...more
As many readers of this blog know by now, last week the Supreme Court issued yet another anti-class certification decision in Comcast Corp. v. Behrend (“Comcast”). While the full scope and meaning of the Court’s holding is...more
4/3/2013
/ Brinker ,
Class Action ,
Class Certification ,
Comcast ,
Comcast v. Behrend ,
Dukes v Wal-Mart ,
FRCP 23 ,
RBS ,
SCOTUS ,
Wage and Hour ,
Wal-Mart ,
Wang v Chinese Daily News ,
Whirlpool
On March 4, 2013 the Ninth Circuit issued a second opinion in the action, Wang v. Chinese Daily News (Wang II), in which it reversed the class certification it had previously affirmed and remanded the matter for further...more