California Employment News - Navigating the New PAGA Reforms: What Employers Need to Know
California Employment News - Navigating the New PAGA Reforms: What Employers Need to Know (Podcast)
California Governor’s PAGA Deal: What Employers Need to Know - Employment Law This Week®
#WorkforceWednesday: California’s Non-Compete Notice Deadline Approaches, California Workplace Violence Regulations, Estrada Decision Keeps Door Open for PAGA Challenges - Employment Law This Week®
Podcast: California Employment News - The Basics of Wage Statement Compliance (Part 1)
California Employment News: The Basics of Wage Statement Compliance (Part 1)
#WorkforceWednesday: SCOTUS Rules on PAGA, Fifth Circuit Rules on COVID-19 Under WARN, Illinois Expands Bereavement Leave - Employment Law This Week®
California Employment News: US Supreme Court “Viking River” Decision Brings PAGA Relief for CA Employers
California Employment News: PAGA - The Four-Letter Word of Employment Law
#WorkforceWednesday: EEOC COVID-19 Charges Surge, NYC’s Pay Transparency Law, SCOTUS Considers PAGA - Employment Law This Week®
Case in Point -- Recent Updates in California Employment Law
In a welcome win for employers, the California Supreme Court recently blocked a PAGA plaintiff’s attempt to intervene and object to another PAGA plaintiff’s proposed settlement as a matter of right, in Turrieta v. Lyft, Inc.,...more
The California Supreme Court just ruled that public employers are not subject to civil penalties under the state’s Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (PAGA). In a pivotal decision, the court held that public entities,...more
The California Supreme Court just held that a plaintiff in one PAGA action does not have the right to intervene or object to a judgment in a similar action even if a settlement or other resolution in that similar case results...more
On August 1, 2024, in Turrieta v. Lyft et al., the California Supreme Court held that a plaintiff in a Private Attorneys General Act (“PAGA”) action does not have a right to intervene -- or to object to or vacate a judgment...more
Aggrieved employee is any person who was employed by the alleged violator and against whom one or more of the alleged violations was committed. An “aggrieved employee” is any person who was employed by the alleged violator...more
At Meyers Nave, we prioritize assisting our clients in establishing and maintaining wage and hour policies that comply with legal standards. This includes implementing effective systems and processes to ensure all levels of...more
On February 12, 2024, in Johnson v. Lowe’s Home Centers, LLC, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that an employee’s non-arbitrable, representative PAGA claims are not subject to dismissal when the plaintiff is ordered to...more
On January 18, 2024, the California Supreme Court issued its long-awaited opinion in Jorge Luis Estrada et al. v. Royalty Carpet Mills, Inc., resolving a court of appeal split between the Second District (Wesson v. Staples...more
In Estrada v. Royalty Carpet Mills, Inc., the California Supreme Court jump-started 2024 with a boon to employees, ending trial courts’ inherent authority to dismiss unmanageable claims under the Private Attorneys’ General...more
The California Supreme Court recently issued a long-awaited opinion resolving a split in the Court of Appeal over whether trial courts may dismiss unmanageable PAGA actions. In Estrada v. Royalty Carpet Mills, Inc., filed...more
California’s Private Attorneys’ General Act, or PAGA, just celebrated its 20th birthday despite repeated, failed attempts at its repeal. California’s Labor Code is among the strictest in the nation and California law affords...more
For companies doing business in California, it’s important to be aware of the January 18, 2024 California Supreme Court decision in Estrada v. Royalty Carpet Mills, Inc.*, which examined whether trial courts can strike PAGA...more
The California Supreme Court has determined that trial courts lack the authority to strike claims brought under California’s Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) on the grounds that trying them would be unmanageable....more
In Estrada v. Royalty Carpet Mills Inc., a unanimous decision by the California Supreme Court resolves a split between California courts of appeal by ruling that a trial court does not have inherent authority to strike PAGA...more
On January 18, 2024, in a highly anticipated and unanimous decision, the Supreme Court of California barred striking a claim under the Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) on trial manageability grounds alone, instead...more
On January 18th, the California Supreme Court in Estrada v. Royalty Carpet Mills, Inc. ruled that defendants sued under the Private Attorney General Act (PAGA) may no longer strike unmanageable claims. PAGA claims are...more
Seyfarth Synopsis: On January 18, 2024, in Estrada v. Royalty Carpet Mills, Inc., the California Supreme Court addressed the split in appellate authority as to whether trial courts have inherent authority to strike a PAGA...more
On 18 January 2024, the Supreme Court of California (Court) unanimously held that trial courts lack inherent authority to dismiss with prejudice claims brought under the Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (PAGA)...more
Seyfarth Synopsis: The California Supreme Court addressed the split in appellate authority and held that trial courts do not have the inherent authority to strike a PAGA claim on manageability grounds....more
Now That California Courts Have Been Stripped of Authority to Dismiss Unmanageable PAGA Claims, How Will Employers Manage PAGA Litigation? The California Supreme Court, on Jan. 18, issued its decision in Estrada v. Royalty...more
Join us on September 26 for a comprehensive webinar hosted by CDF as we delve into the crucial subject of arbitrating PAGA claims, exploring its implications following the California Supreme Court's landmark decision in...more
The California Supreme Court issued a much-anticipated Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) decision in Adolph v. Uber Technologies, Inc. in July, departing from the United States Supreme Court’s 2022 ruling in Viking River...more
The California Supreme Court recently rejected the U.S. Supreme Court’s interpretation of standing under the Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA). In Adolph v. Uber Technologies, Inc., 532 P.3d 682 (Cal. 2023), the Court...more
One month after the U.S. Supreme Court rejected California’s ban on enforcing agreements that require the individual arbitration of claims under the Private Attorneys General Act of 2004, the California Supreme Court granted...more
The California Supreme Court has closed the door on the employer-friendly rule the U.S. Supreme Court set out in the case of Viking River Cruises Inc. v. Moriana. There, the Supreme Court held that employees could waive their...more