California Supreme Court

Subscribe to California Supreme Court via RSS

The California Supreme Court recently heard the case of Troester v. Starbucks Corporation which could significantly increase employers’ exposure to claims by hourly paid employees for small pre-shift and post-shift tasks that are currently treated as insignificant and not compensable.

The de minimis doctrine, an established defense under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), permits…

In Hamid H. Khan v. Dunn-Edwards Corporation (January 4, 2018), the California Court of Appeal for the Second Appellate District held that the plaintiff failed to comply with required administrative procedures prior to bringing a claim under the California Private Attorneys General Act (“PAGA”) because he failed to provide sufficient notice to the California Labor…

On April 4, 2016, the California Supreme Court took a stand by issuing a long-awaited opinion in Kirby v. CVS Pharmacy, Inc.  The decision clarifies certain ambiguities in an employer’s obligation to provide suitable seating to employees.  At issue was a provision in California’s Wage Orders that requires employers to provide all employees “with suitable seats when the nature of the work reasonably permits the use of seats.”  The Court held that “nature of the work” refers to the task performed at a given location where the employee is claiming a right to a suitable seat, instead of a holistic approach.  The Court also adopted a “totality of the circumstances” test to assess whether a work location “reasonably permits” suitable seating.

Background

Kirby v. CVS Pharmacy, Inc. arises from a putative class actions filed by a cashier and bank teller. The plaintiffs alleged their employer violated the suitable seating provision in various California Wage Orders by failing to provide seats. The plaintiffs appealed unfavorable district court decisions to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.  The Ninth Circuit requested clarification from the California Supreme Court on the proper interpretation of three areas of the suitable seating provision, including the meaning of “nature of work” and “reasonably permits,” and who bears the burden to show suitable seating is available.
Continue Reading The California Supreme Court Finally Weighs In on Suitable Seating

Declining to enforce a representative action waiver contained in an arbitration agreement, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, in San Francisco, has held that the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”) does not preempt California’s “Iskanian rule,” which prohibits waiver of representative claims under the state Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (“PAGA”), Cal. Lab. Code § 2698 et seq. Sakkab v. Luxottica Retail North America, Inc., No. 13-55184 (9th Cir. Sept. 28, 2015).

The PAGA “authorizes an employee to bring an action for civil penalties on behalf of the state against his or her employer for Labor Code violations committed against the employee and fellow employees, with most of the proceeds of that litigation going to the state.” Iskanian v. CLS Transportation Los Angeles, LLC, 59 Cal.4th 348, 360 (2014). Thus, a PAGA claim is a type of government enforcement action where the representative employee acts as the state’s proxy.Continue Reading California Ban on Waiver of Representative PAGA Claims Not Barred by Federal Arbitration Act, Federal Court Holds

On May 4, 2015, the California Supreme Court ruled that a prevailing defendant in a California Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”) lawsuit can only recover ordinary litigation costs if it demonstrates that the plaintiff’s FEHA claims were frivolous, unreasonable, or groundless.  (Williams v. Chino Valley Ind. Fire Distr. (Cal. Sup. Ct. May 4, 2015), Case No. S213100).  Prior to this ruling, a majority of California courts had ruled that a prevailing defendant in a FEHA case could recover costs as a matter of right.  As such, the Williams case significantly changes California’s employment litigation landscape by making cost shifting even more one-sided in favor of employees.
Continue Reading California Supreme Court: California Employers Face New Challenge In Recovering Post-Litigation Costs

On February 26, 2015, in Franco v. Arakelian Enterprises, Inc., Case No. B232583, the California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District held that trial court proceedings on claims pursuant to the California Private Attorney General Act (“PAGA”) (Labor Code § 2698 et seq.) must be stayed pending individual arbitration of the underlying individual wage and hour claims (originally pled as classwide claims) pursuant to an arbitration agreement containing a classwide arbitration waiver.
Continue Reading California Court of Appeal Rules PAGA Claims Must Be Stayed Pending Outcome of Individual Arbitration on Underlying Individual Wage and Hour Claims

The battle over whether employees may waive the right to pursue claims under California’s Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) in arbitration continues. The Supreme Court of the United States recently requested a response from ex-Bridgestone Retail Operations LLC employees to Bridgestone’s January 5, 2015 petition for a writ of certiorari challenging the California Supreme Court’s refusal to enforce an arbitration agreement waiving PAGA claims.
Continue Reading Enforceability of PAGA Waivers in Arbitration Agreements – The Battle Continues

Employers received a welcome development late last week when the California Supreme Court decided to review the controversial Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. Superior Court (SC S222732/B249546 rev. granted 1/28/15) regarding misclassification of independent contractors. This case is important since it arguably created a different definition of “employee” for determining if an individual is misclassified as an independent contractor with respect to violations of the California Industrial Welfare Commission (“IWC”) Wage Orders.  The Court will consider the following issue:
Continue Reading Controversial Dynamex Case Regarding Misclassification of Independent Contractors to be Reviewed by California Supreme Court

The U.S. Supreme Court has declined to review the California Supreme Court’s decision that representative claims under the California Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act (“PAGA”) cannot be waived in employment arbitration agreements. Iskanian v. CLS Transp. Los Angeles, LLC, 59 Cal. 4th 348 (Cal. 2014), cert. denied, No. 14-341 (U.S. Jan. 20, 2015).

In Iskanian, the California Supreme Court ruled the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”) preempted California law disfavoring enforcement of a class action waiver in employment arbitration agreements. However, it also ruled the FAA did not preempt representative actions under PAGA. For additional information on Iskanian, please see our article, California High Court: Class Action Waivers in Arbitration Valid, But Waivers of Representative Actions under State Law Are Not.
Continue Reading California Supreme Court Decision Barring Waiver of Representative Claims is Left Intact by U.S. Supreme Court

Holding that “hours worked” under California Labor Code and Industrial Welfare Commission (“IWC”) Wage Order No. 4-2001 (“Wage Order 4”) include all time spent at the employer’s workplace and under the employer’s control, such as sleep time, the California Supreme Court has ruled that security guards were entitled to compensation for all on-call time, including…