Under California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”), employers generally are strictly liable for a supervisor’s harassment, even where the employer is unaware of the supervisor’s alleged bad actions. While this left many employers without much recourse in the event supervisors misbehaved, a recently published Court of Appeal decision offers some hope. In Atalla v. Rite Aid Corp., 2023 WL
California Employment Law Update
Latest from California Employment Law Update
Reminder: Employer Considerations When Contemplating Delaying Payroll
On March 10, 2023, financial markets were rocked by uncertainty over the future of certain significant financial institutions. Among other concerns, bank failures raise the prospect of temporary or long-term cash flow problems for account holders, as deposits totaling more than $250,000 exceed the amount covered by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. Often, companies’ largest financial commitments are their payroll…
Court of Appeal Rules Plaintiff May Recover PAGA Penalties For Violating Sick Pay Statute
In the first ruling of its kind, the California Court of Appeal (4th Dist.) recently ruled that a plaintiff may pursue penalties under the Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) for alleged violations of California’s sick pay statute, the Healthy Workplaces, Healthy Families Act of 2014. Wood v. Kaiser Found. Hosps., 2023 WL 2198664 (Cal. Ct. App. Feb. 24, 2023).
Good News for Employers: Good Faith Belief of Compliance Precludes Both Final Wage and Wage Statement Penalties
Last summer, we reported here the California Supreme Court ruling that premium payments owed under Labor Code section 226.7 for meal and rest break violations constitute “wages.” The Naranjo et al. v. Spectrum Sec. Servs., Inc., 13 Cal. 5th 93, 102 (2022) decision had significant ramifications because it triggered related obligations for employers to report the premiums on employee wage…
California’s War On The Fast-Food Industry Continues
In the California Legislature’s latest attack on the fast-food industry, Assemblymember Chris Holden (D-Pasadena) introduced the Fast Food Franchisor Responsibility Act (“AB 1228”). AB 1228 was introduced shortly after a Sacramento County Superior Court judge issued a preliminary injunction to stop the controversial Fast Food Accountability and Standards Recovery Act or “FAST Recovery Act” (AB 257) from taking…
Employees Lose on PAGA Claims in Court Following Loss in Arbitration
Earlier this month, the California Court of Appeal (2d Dist.) ruled that issue preclusion bars a derivative Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) claim where the plaintiff litigates individual Labor Code claims in arbitration and loses. Rocha v. U-Haul Co. of Cal., 2023 WL 1462594 (Cal. Ct. App. Feb. 2, 2023) (certified for publication). Rocha, while at odds with a prior decision…
Ninth Circuit Panel Changes its Mind and Obliterates California’s Anti-Mandatory Employment Arbitration Law
Yesterday, a three-judge Ninth Circuit panel revisited its own 2021 order and finally struck down California’s anti-mandatory employment arbitration law, Assembly Bill 51 (“AB 51”). In an opinion drafted by the former dissenting judge, Judge Sandra Ikuta, the new majority declared AB 51 was preempted by the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”).
The statute in question, signed into law by Governor…
Outside Salesperson Exemption Does Not Apply To Workers Whose Employer Controls Their Hours And Working Conditions
Espinoza v. Warehouse Demo Servs., Inc., 86 Cal. App. 5th 1184 (2022)
Georgina Espinoza, an employee of Warehouse Demo Services (“Warehouse”), worked in a Costco and performed demonstrations of products. Warehouse did not lease the space, but instead collects floor space on behalf of the companies whose products are demonstrated and then remits payment on their behalf to Costco. Espinoza…
January 2023 California Employment Law Notes
We invite you to review our newly-posted January 2023 California Employment Law Notes, a comprehensive review of the latest and most significant developments in California employment law. The highlights include:
- Age/National Origin Case Was Properly Dismissed Despite “Direct Evidence” Of Discriminatory Animus
- Family Court May Order Employer To Provide Determination Of Arrearages Owed In Spousal Support Case
- Background Check
Employees Attack Arbitration Agreement By Claiming “Not To Recall” Signing It – And Lose!
In recent years, employees (and their lawyers) have taken a variety of approaches to challenging the enforceability of workplace arbitration agreements. One common tactic has been to claim that they “don’t remember signing it” and, therefore, should not be required to arbitrate their claims. And at least one Court in the Second Appellate District has accepted this excuse. See Gamboa v.