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
U.S. Supreme Court Denies Petition for Rehearing in Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana
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
California Supreme Court Accepts Invitation to Weigh In on Employment Arbitration Agreements & PAGA
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
U.S. Supreme Court Hears Oral Arguments on Waiver of PAGA Claims in Arbitration Agreements
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)
Ninth Circuit Defers Decision on Petition for Rehearing Regarding AB 51
Last year, a divided Ninth Circuit panel found that the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) did not completely preempt Assembly Bill (AB) 51, California’s ban on mandatory arbitration agreements. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce then filed a petition for rehearing en banc (Petition), which has been pending before the Ninth Circuit since October 2021.
On
Ninth Circuit Rejects Ex-Tinder Employee’s Attempt to Avoid Arbitration
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that an ex-Tinder employee must arbitrate her claims against her former employer and cannot pursue her claims in court, even though her claims arose before she executed an arbitration agreement. In reaching this decision, the Ninth Circuit not only enforced the broad language of the parties’ arbitration
$102 Million Pay Stub, Meal Break Judgment Against Walmart Reversed
In a significant victory for California employers, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed a $102 million award against Walmart in a suit alleging that the retailer violated the California Labor Code’s wage statement and meal-break provisions. The decision is Magadia v. Wal-Mart Associates, Inc., May 28, 2021, No. 19-16184.
The
Ninth Circuit Upholds Arbitration for Non-Signatory Defendant
California law is not typically seen as amiable to compelling employees to arbitrate their claims. However, in Franklin v. Community Regional Medical Center, ___ F.3d___(9th Cir. 2021), the Ninth Circuit panel upheld a motion to compel arbitration by a non-signatory to an arbitration agreement based on California law.
Read the full article on Jackson Lewis
Private Attorneys General Act Round-Up for 2020
2020 presented a myriad of challenges for California employers, including the constant march of California court opinions regarding the Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) claims.
The California courts focused on two issues involving PAGA this year:
- Can a Plaintiff proceed with their PAGA claim (standing)?
- Can a Defendant compel arbitration when there is a PAGA
No Initials, No Problem: California Court of Appeal Holds Failure to Initial Not Enough to Prevent Arbitration
“What if neither party to an arbitration agreement places initials next to a jury waiver contained in the agreement, even though the drafter included lines for their initials?” asked the California Court of Appeal in Martinez v. BaronHR, Inc.,Cal. App. LEXIS 631 (2020).
The employee in Martinez was given several employment-related documents, including