The California Supreme Court recently held plaintiffs may pursue non-individual Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) claims in court, even after their individual claims are sent to arbitration. The ruling departed from the Supreme Court of the United States’ holding in Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana.
There is a new, but not entirely unexpected, front in the continuing war over California Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) claims. On July 20, 2022, the California Supreme Court granted review in Adolph v. Uber Technologies, Inc., opening the door for a ruling that potentially may complicate the relief provided to employers by the recent decision from the Supreme Court of the United States in Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana.
On May 25, 2022, the California State Assembly approved Assembly Bill (AB) No. 2243, with the bill now proceeding to the Senate for a vote.
On March 30, 2022, the Supreme Court of the United States heard oral argument in a critically important case for California employers, Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana, Case No. 20-1573.
The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) regulates the hours of service for drivers of certain property-carrying commercial motor vehicles. The FMCSA’s regulations include meal and rest break rules that generally prohibit drivers from driving if they have gone eight hours without a thirty-minute off-duty or sleeper-berth break. Drivers must also be provided with breaks any time they feel fatigued or are otherwise unable to safely drive.
On February 7, 2022, a California appellate court issued the latest decision regarding the Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA). Representative PAGA actions, which typically involve a relatively brief statute of limitations, permit California employees to collect civil penalties on behalf of the State of California for Labor Code violations committed against them and other employees.
On November 15, 2021, the Supreme Court of the United States issued an order concerning the California Trucking Association’s (CTA) challenge to California’s independent contractor law, Assembly Bill (AB) 5. The Supreme Court‘s order invited the United States Solicitor General (SG) to file a submission describing the federal government’s position with respect to this case and the question CTA posed to the Court that the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act of 1994 (FAAAA) preempts AB 5.
On September 9, 2021, a California Court of Appeal issued its ruling in Wesson v. Staples the Office Superstore, LLC, delivering a welcome victory to employers battling representative actions under the Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA). Under the 2004 law, an “aggrieved employee” is empowered to commence a PAGA representative action on behalf of all other “aggrieved employees” to seek civil penalties for alleged violations of the California Labor Code.
Taking a meal break in California is no simple affair. Culminating seven years of litigation involving one California employer, on February 25, 2021, the Supreme Court of California issued its unanimous opinion in Donohue v. AMN Services, LLC, resolving two questions regarding California meal periods. The court’s opinion also raised, but did not resolve, questions regarding meal period compliance that will likely challenge employers and litigants for years.
In Davidson v. O’Reilly Auto Enterprises, LLC, No. 18-56188 (August 3, 2020), the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals addressed whether a district court abused its discretion in denying class certification for an employee’s claim for improper rest breaks under California law where the employer allegedly had a facially defective written rest break policy.
On April 16, 2020, California Governor Gavin Newsom signed Executive Order (EO) N-51-20, which imposes new obligations on employers to provide up to 80 hours of supplemental paid sick leave to certain food sector workers. The following overview provides answers to common questions, including: (1) which food service workers are covered by EO N-51-20; (2) what an employer’s obligations are to those covered workers; and (3) how EO N-51-20 interacts with other laws.
On January 16, 2020, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California entered an order granting a preliminary injunction requested by the California Trucking Association (CTA), which was represented by Ogletree Deakins shareholders Robert R. Roginson, Alexander M. Chemers, and Spencer C. Skeen, in a matter challenging Assembly Bill (AB) 5 as to motor carriers operating in California.
On January 13, 2020, U.S. District Court Judge Roger T. Benitez left in place a temporary restraining order (TRO) enjoining the enforcement of California’s Assembly Bill (AB) 5 as to motor carriers operating in California.
The Beltway Buzz is a weekly update summarizing labor and employment news from inside the Beltway and clarifying how what’s happening in Washington, D.C. could impact your business.
On September 18, 2019, Governor Gavin Newsom signed Assembly bill (AB) 5, which codifies last year’s Supreme Court of California decision establishing a new test to determine whether a worker is an independent contractor or an employee.
On September 11, 2019, the California Assembly passed a bill codifying last year’s Supreme Court of California decision establishing a new test to determine whether a worker is an independent contractor or an employee.
In Duffey v. Tender Heart Home Care Agency, LLC, the California Court of Appeal for the First District addressed whether an in-home caregiver was an independent contractor or employee.
On January 29, 2019, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals concluded that the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act of 1994 (FAAAA) does not preempt New Jersey’s ABC test for determining whether a worker is an independent contractor or employee.
In an order with significant implications for motor carriers, the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) concluded that California’s meal and rest break rules are preempted by federal transportation law and may no longer be enforced by the State of California where the driver is subject to federal hours-of-service (HOS) requirements. Specifically, on December 21,
The Beltway Buzz is a weekly update summarizing labor and employment news from inside the Beltway and clarifying how what’s happening in Washington, D.C. could impact your business.
On January 15, 2019, the Supreme Court of the United States held that the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) did not apply to wage claims brought by an interstate truck driver, even though the plaintiff was classified as an independent contractor.
In a landmark decision, the Supreme Court of California adopted a new test to determine whether a worker performing services for a company is an employee or an independent contractor under California’s wage orders. The new three-factor test, known as the ABC test, will determine whether a company “employs” a worker under the wage orders, which address certain requirements for minimum wage, overtime, and meal and rest periods, among others.
On February 28, 2017, the California Court of Appeal issued a significant decision in Vaquero v. Stoneledge Furniture LLC (No. B269657). The decision, which was certified for publication, is the first ruling by a California appellate court requiring employers to separately compensate commissioned employees—as opposed to employees paid by piece rate—for rest periods.
