Several employment-related cases are currently pending before the California Supreme Court, and their outcomes could have a significant impact on workplace policies and risk management for employers and HR professionals.
Fuentes v. Empire Nissan, Inc.
This case addresses whether a form arbitration agreement required as a condition of employment is unenforceable due to unconscionability.
The
California’s Governor signed Senate Bill (SB) 53, which creates a comprehensive regulatory framework for advanced AI. The law takes effect January 1, 2026.
SB 53 is designed to govern what it calls “frontier” AI models, which are large, cutting-edge systems built by major developers with substantial resources. The central aim of the law is
The California Supreme Court’s recent decision in Hohenshelt v. Superior Court addressed whether California’s Code of Civil Procedure section 1281.98, which requires the party that drafted the arbitration agreement to pay arbitration fees within 30 days of the due date or face consequences such as forfeiting arbitration rights, is preempted by the Federal Arbitration Act
The California Civil Rights Department (CRD) has recently approved regulations under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) to address discrimination in employment resulting from the use of automated decision-making systems, including artificial intelligence (AI) and algorithms. These regulations apply to all employers covered by the FEHA and will likely take effect in July, once
California courts, like most federal courts, have historically held that a party does not waive its contractual right to compel arbitration unless the party opposing arbitration has been prejudiced by the moving party’s delay in seeking arbitration. However, last term in Morgan v. Sundance, Inc., the U.S. Supreme Court clarified that the Federal Arbitration
The California Supreme Court issued its opinion in Ramirez v. Charter Communications, affirming in part that the arbitration agreement contained some substantive unconscionability but remanding the case to determine whether the agreement could be salvaged by severing the unconscionable provisions. In doing so, the California Supreme Court clarified its view on the enforceability of
In 2019, California enacted Senate (SB) Bill 707, a law codified as California Code of Civil Procedure sections 1281.98 and 1281.99, that automatically deems an employer’s failure to pay fees required for the commencement or continuation of arbitration within 30 days of the payment’s due date a material breach of the arbitration agreement. A
On May 9, 2023, the California Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Adolph v. Uber to decide “[w]hether an aggrieved employee who has been compelled to arbitrate [their individual] claims under the [California Labor Code] Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) . . . maintains statutory standing to pursue PAGA claims arising out of events involving
In a pair of cases decided by the Second Appellate District of the California Court of Appeal, the Court reiterated the difference between procedural and substantive unconscionability when it comes to invalidating arbitration agreements based on unconscionability: procedural unconscionability focuses on the fairness of the process leading to the formation of the agreement, whereas substantive
A pair of recent California Court of Appeal decisions serve as yet another reminder to employers of the difficulties that they potentially face when enforcing arbitration agreements in California and, as a result, the importance of drafting clear, precise arbitration agreements. The first case, Hernandez v. Meridian Management Services, LLC, reiterated the importance of