In ZB, N.A. v. Superior Court (Lawson) (Sept. 12, 2019), the California Supreme Court held that plaintiffs cannot recover the unpaid wages described in Labor Code section 558 in a Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (PAGA) claim. This ruling drastically limits the amount of penalties that plaintiffs can attempt to recover in PAGA actions.
The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments on October 2, 2017 in Epic System Corp. v. Lewis. And while the case may not make headline news, it has very important ramifications for employers across the country. At issue is whether employers can legally compel employees to enter into arbitration agreements which contain class action
Two cases decided in the last two months have further clarified the scope of discovery and plaintiff’s ability to pursue damages in addition to individual damages under California’s Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA). The holdings are a bit of a mixed bag for employers, but they offer some clarification into PAGA. This Friday’s Five is
Let me start with the lawyer’s disclaimer up-front: this Friday’s Five list has no scientific or statistical backing whatsoever, I generated it based on the cases I’ve been litigating in 2014. My experience may be (and probably is) skewed a bit, but nevertheless California employers should pay attention to the following areas of potential litigation.
1. Arbitration Agreements: What Are They?
Employers can agree that they and any employees who enter into an arbitration agreement will resolve their differences before a private arbitrator instead of civil court. There are many different arbitration companies to choose from, but the American Arbitration Association and JAMS are two of the larger ones that