Predictions about the spread of COVID-19 through significant parts of the population and its effects on American life are staggering. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reports more than 54,000 confirmed cases in the United States. As countries across the world implement new, extraordinary measures in an attempt to contain the coronavirus, which
Last week, in Kim v. Reins International California, Inc., No. S246911, after more than two years on review and extensive briefing by amicus curiae, the California Supreme Court unanimously resolved an issue of first impression concerning the Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA): whether settlement of individual Labor Code claims extinguishes PAGA standing.
California’s Labor Code contains a number of provisions designed to protect the health, safety, and compensation of workers. Among those laws, PAGA provides a mechanism for employees to enforce the Labor Code as the state’s designated proxy. In particular, PAGA authorizes “aggrieved employees” to pursue civil penalties on behalf of the state. Those penalties differ from statutory damages or other penalties an employee may recover individually for alleged Labor Code violations because relief under PAGA is intended to benefit the general public, not the party bringing the action.
Companies with operations in California can exhale slightly, with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal and another California appellate court recently concluding, separately, that the rigid “ABC Test” established in Dynamex v. The Superior Court of Los Angeles County does not apply in the joint employer context.
As previously detailed here, the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2018 Epic Systems decision established that requiring employees to waive their right to pursue collective or class actions does not violate the National Labor Relations Act’s “catchall” protection—the right to engage in “concerted activity”—and courts must enforce arbitration agreements as written.
The Supreme Court not only confirmed the legality of class action waivers under the Federal Arbitration Act, but it also narrowly construed the NLRA’s catchall provision as focused on the right to organize unions and bargain collectively in the workplace.
The Court’s holding that the right to engage in such “concerted activities” does not guarantee collective or class action procedures underpins a recent NLRB decision concerning issues of first impression: imposing and requiring as a condition for continued employment a new class action waiver rule in response to collective action.
The California Court of Appeal recently held that an individual (i.e., an owner, director, officer, or managing agent of a corporate employer) can be found liable for civil penalties resulting from the employer’s failure to comply with California’s overtime pay and minimum wage laws with no showing that the individual misused or abused the corporate laws for a wrongful or inequitable purpose.
This month the California Supreme Court reaffirmed that workers’ compensation laws are the exclusive remedy for an employee’s injuries. In King v. CompPartners, the Court ruled that an employee’s tort claims against a utilization review company and a doctor performing a mandatory utilization review were preempted. In so doing, the Court reminded employees that the Court construes the Workers Compensation Act (WCA) liberally and broadly, in favor of awarding workers’ compensation, not in permitting civil litigation.
The First District Court of Appeal’s August 1, 2018 decision in Nishiki v. Danko Meredith, APC reminds employers of the harsh consequences for failing to timely (and properly) pay an employee’s wages upon resignation or termination.
The Court of Appeal addressed the Superior Court’s order 1) affirming the California Labor Commissioner’s award of $4,250 in “waiting time” penalties (i.e., the statutory penalty under Labor Code section 203 for the time an employee has to wait for the late payment of final wages), and 2) awarding Nishiki attorneys’ fees in the amount of $86,160 following the employer’s unsuccessful appeal from the Labor Commissioner to the Superior Court. On further appeal to the Court of Appeal, the employer argued the waiting time penalties were unwarranted and the attorney fees award was excessive. Though the Court of Appeal reduced the waiting time penalties, it otherwise affirmed the judgment and remanded for the trial court to award Nishiki additional attorneys’ fees incurred in responding to Danko’s appeal to the First District.