A California Court of Appeal recently held that stray remarks by a non-decision maker regarding a position not sought after by the plaintiff may nonetheless be enough to defeat summary judgment in an age discrimination case in Jorgensen v. Loyola Marymount University.
Author: Pascal Benyamini
New California Laws for 2022: What Employers Should Know
California Gov. Gavin Newsom signed several laws in 2021 that are impacting or will impact how employers interact with and manage their employees. From confidentiality and nondisparagement provisions in settlement agreements to production quotas in warehouses, we examine the laws that have gone into effect and which laws employers need to begin preparing for over the next one to two years.
Continue reading “New California Laws for 2022: What Employers Should Know”
Ninth Circuit Vacates Injunction Against California Ban on Businesses Which Forced Workers to Submit to Arbitration Agreements
A divided three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals vacated the January 2020 preliminary injunction against enforcement of Assembly Bill 51 (AB 51), and upheld portions of the law that prohibited employers from making arbitration agreements a condition of employment. As a result of this decision, the Ninth Circuit has resurrected California Labor Code § 432.6, that bars businesses from requiring workers to arbitrate job-related claims. However, the court invalidated portions of AB 51 imposing civil and criminal penalties for mandating arbitration in violation of § 432.6.
DOL Extends FLSA Final Joint Employment Rule Effective Date
The federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) requires employers to pay non-exempt employees at least minimum wage plus overtime compensation. If an employee is unpaid or underpaid — due to a calculation error or an employee’s unreported time worked, including remote work arrangements during the pandemic — the employee may recover back pay, liquidated damages, attorneys’ fees and litigation costs. If two or more employers have a relationship with an employee — for example, if an employee works for a staffing agency and is assigned to work at the agency’s customer or an employee performs work for two with common ownership or management — the law may deem the employers to be joint employers with joint and several liability, depending on the facts. If one joint employer fails to comply with the FLSA, both joint employers may be held liable. Different laws use different tests for joint employment.
Continue reading “DOL Extends FLSA Final Joint Employment Rule Effective Date”
California Court of Appeal Upholds Dismissal of ‘Unmanageable’ PAGA Claim
On September 9, 2021, the Second District of the California Courts of Appeal ruled in Fred Wesson v. Staples the Office Superstore, LLC that trial courts have “inherent authority” to strike claims under the California Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) if they will not be manageable at trial. As the first precedential decision on this issue from a California court, this case provides employers with a welcome potential defense to some PAGA claims.
Facts and Background
Under PAGA, employees in California are empowered to bring claims on behalf of other employees (and the state of California) for violations of the California Labor Code. Critically, plaintiffs need not meet class action requirements or go through class action procedures to bring claims under PAGA on behalf of other employees. As a result, unlike class actions, employers have had relatively limited recourse to challenge wide-reaching PAGA claims, sometimes brought on behalf of hundreds or thousands of employees.
Continue reading “California Court of Appeal Upholds Dismissal of ‘Unmanageable’ PAGA Claim”
An Employee Whose Individual Claims Are Time-Barred Can Still Pursue a PAGA Action
On July 21, 2021, the California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, held in Johnson v. Maxim Healthcare Services, Inc., that an aggrieved employee whose individual claim was time-barred had standing to pursue a representative claim under the Private Attorney General Act of 2004 (PAGA) on behalf of other allegedly aggrieved employees. The court’s decision was based on its interpretation of the California Supreme Court’s 2020 ruling in Kim v. Reins, wherein the high court held an aggrieved employee who settled his individual claims nonetheless had standing to maintain a representative PAGA action. This decision is poised to have a significant impact on all employers in California by expanding the scope of individuals with standing to bring a PAGA action.