Insight & Commentary on California Workplace Law Issues & Developments
The California Supreme Court issued several important decisions in 2023 about issues such as COVID-19 take-home exposure and arbitrating Private Attorney General Act (PAGA) claims.
Employers should continue to be aware of several cases pending before the state’s high court. Here are the highlights and what these cases could mean for California employers.
PAGA…
California employers are not alone as they wrestle with AB 51’s January 1, 2020 new law on mandatory arbitration agreements. (For background on AB 51 see our article). On December 6, 2019, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and other business organizations filed suit against the State of California to have AB 51 declared preempted…
On Wednesday, September 17, 2019, California’s Governor Gavin Newsom signed Assembly Bill (AB 5), limiting when businesses can classify employees as independent contractors. The new law goes into effect on January 1, 2020. For further information, please click this link.
Jackson Lewis attorneys are available to discuss the bill and to assist employers in…
Putting an end to employees’ backdoor attempts to recover unpaid wages in Private Attorneys General Act-only actions under California Labor Code Section 558, the California Supreme Court has ruled against allowing such claims. ZB, N.A., et al. v. Superior Court, No. S246711 (Sept. 12, 2019).
This is surprising, as the Court provided this much-needed guidance…
The California Assembly has passed a bill that would require workers to be classified as employees if the employer exerts control over how the workers perform their tasks or if their work is part of the employer’s regular business.
Assembly Bill 5 (AB 5) passed by a vote of 61-16 in the Assembly. Governor Gavin…
The California worker classification bill, Assembly Bill 5 (AB 5), advanced closer to passage just prior to the Labor Day weekend.
Please recall, AB 5, which is Assembly member Lorena Gonzalez’s proposed legislation regarding worker classification (discussed below and in a prior article by Jackson Lewis here), was referred to the Senate Appropriations Committee…
Judge George H. Wu of the United States District Court for the Central District of California recently dismissed meal and rest break claims brought under the California Labor Code in a class action against motor carrier U.S. Xpress.
In Anthony Ayala v. U.S. Xpress Enterprises, Inc. et al, Judge Wu granted U.S. Xpress’ motion…
While best practices would be to use the employer’s registered name, a recent Court of Appeal opinion has upheld an employer’s use of its fictitious business name in its wage statements.
California Labor Code section 226 lists information that must be included in every employee’s wage statement. Pursuant to subsection (a)(8), one piece of information …
Affirming a district court order dismissing a putative class action, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has held that Taco Bell’s policy of requiring employees to eat employer-discounted meals in the restaurant does not convert the meal period into “on duty” time such that the meal period becomes compensable under California law. Rodriguez v. Taco…
