Photo of Scott P. Jang

Scott P. Jang is a principal in the San Francisco, California, office of Jackson Lewis P.C. He represents management in all areas of employment law, with particular focus on class actions and complex litigation. Scott is a member of the firm’s California Class and Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) Action group, as well as a member of the California Advice and Counsel resource group.

Scott’s litigation experience covers the full spectrum of employment law. He has experience defending employers against claims for alleged discrimination, harassment, retaliation, wrongful termination, and unfair competition. He also has experience defending employers against various wage and hour claims, including claims for alleged overtime, meal and rest breaks, and business expense reimbursement. Scott's trial practice includes having served as second chair in a bench trial in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, in which a national beverage manufacturer fully prevailed on all claims for alleged misclassification. He has also served as first chair in several arbitrations for a national retailer for alleged wage and hour violations.

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

Among the many challenges employers face in enforcing employment arbitration agreements in California are employees arguing that they are not bound by the agreement because they do not recall signing it, even when the agreement contains their signature.  A California Court of Appeal decision recently shot down this argument, holding that an employee cannot evade

On June 15, 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana that bilateral arbitration agreements governed by the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) may require arbitration of California Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) claims on an individual basis only.

In early July, Moriana, the named plaintiff-employee at the center of Viking

On June 15, 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana that bilateral arbitration agreements governed by the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) may require arbitration of California Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) claims on an individual basis only.

However, Justice Sotomayor’s concurring opinion in Viking River Cruises also seemingly included

In December 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear arguments in Viking River Cruises v. Moriana (Viking). The question presented in Viking is whether the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) requires enforcement of a bilateral arbitration agreement providing that an employee cannot raise representative claims, including representative claims under California’s Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA)