Arbitration

Subscribe to Arbitration via RSS

Even employee claims of sexual harassment that occurred before the effective date of the Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act (EFAA) may end up in court. In Olivieri v. Stifel, Nicolaus & Co., the Second Circuit Court of Appeals held that acts occurring before the effective date of the EFAA can be deemed to be part and parcel with acts occurring after the effective date–so that all of the claims accrue as of the later date and are subject to the EFAA.

What happened

Patricia Olivieri filed suit against her employer Stifel, Nicolaus & Co. (Stifel) and several coworkers in 2021 alleging gender-based discrimination, hostile work environment and retaliation claims under Title VII and the New York State Human Rights Law (NYSHL). Olivieri alleged her manager sexually assaulted and repeatedly sexually harassed her, and that after she reported her manager to the company, the defendants allegedly subjected her to a hostile work environment characterized by discrimination and retaliation.

Stifel moved to compel arbitration of Olivieri’s claims based on an arbitration clause in the plaintiff’s employment agreement. The US District Court for the Eastern District of New York initially granted Stifel’s motion to compel in late March 2022, not having been made aware of the enactment of the EFAA on March 3, 2022 by any party. (The EFAA allows a plaintiff alleging sexual harassment or sexual assault to void a pre-dispute arbitration agreement at their discretion. Claims under the EFAA accrue “on or after” March 3, 2022.) In light of the EFAA, Olivieri subsequently moved for reconsideration of the district court’s order requiring her to arbitrate her claims, and the district court turned course, vacating its prior decision and denying the employer’s motion to compel arbitration. The district court concluded that the plaintiff’s hostile work environment claims–which alleged a hostile work environment and retaliation both before and after the effective date of the EFAA–were subject to the continuing violation doctrine of accrual and accrued after the EFAA’s effective date. Therefore, the EFAA applied to allow the plaintiff to void her pre-dispute arbitration agreement. On appeal, a three-judge panel of the Second Circuit unanimously affirmed.Continue Reading Before, After, or Both? Second Circuit Rules Pre-EFAA Activity Can Go to Court Instead of Arbitration

On July 1, 2024 California Governor Newsom signed “compromise” PAGA reform bills into law (AB 2282 and SB 92) (PAGA Reform), which took the PAGA repeal initiative we told you about in May (see here) off the November 5, 2024 ballot.  

On the bright side for employers, the new law shows leniency toward employers who can show they have taken reasonable steps toward PAGA compliance, through (among other things) caps on damages and expanded cure provisions. That said, employers will still need to be diligent to avoid wage and hour violations. One reason: while the ballot initiative (if passed) would have prevented plaintiffs’ attorneys from recovering fees, the PAGA Reform still allows plaintiffs to collect reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs. In addition, the PAGA Reform allows employees to keep a greater percentage of the recovery than before, meaning there is still plenty of incentive for employees to file PAGA claims–even with the employer-friendly changes.

We hit the highlights of the PAGA Reform here.

Effective date

The PAGA Reform applies to PAGA civil complaints and notices of PAGA claims provided to the California Labor & Workforce Development Agency (LWDA) on or after June 19, 2024. Prior PAGA rules will apply to claims pending on or before June 19 or based on notices sent prior to June 19. (Though note that certain cure provisions do not take effect until October 1, 2024–see more below.)

Stricter standing requirements, and statute of limitations questions clarified

Under PAGA Reform, employees are now required to show they “personally suffered” each of the violations of the Labor Code they seek to pursue in a representative capacity under PAGA. Before the new law, if an employee could prove a single Labor Code violation, the employee could sue in a representative capacity on the same or any other Labor Code violation–even if the employee had not been personally affected by the other violations. (Note, the new standing requirement does not apply to certain nonprofit legal aid organizations that have served as counsel of record for PAGA civil actions for at least 5 years prior to January 1, 2025.)

In addition, PAGA Reform clarifies that the statute of limitations to bring a PAGA claim is one year (the period prescribed under Section 340 of the Code of Civil Procedure)–dismissing interpretations that stemmed from the California Court of Appeals decision in Johnson v. Maxim Healthcare Services, Inc. that the PAGA statute of limitations defines the liability period for a PAGA claim, but otherwise places no time restriction on who may pursue a PAGA claim.

However, even if an employee meets the statute of limitations under PAGA, if the LWDA (or any of its departments, divisions, commissions, boards, agencies or employees) has already–on the “same facts and theories”–timely cited an employer for violation of the same section of the Labor Code under which the employee is attempting to recover a civil penalty, or initiated a proceeding under Section 98.3 (allowing the Labor Commissioner to prosecute certain violations, including wage-related violations), the employee is barred from pursing that civil penalty. This restriction remains from prior PAGA rules, and helps to ensure employers are not penalized twice for the same conduct.

Courts’ power to manage PAGA claims clarified

Under PAGA Reform, courts have specified power to manage PAGA claims, including by limiting the scope of any claim to ensure it can be effectively tried, and limiting the evidence presented at trial–following the lead of the California Supreme Court decision Estrada v. Royal Carpet Mills, Inc., which held that though trial courts do not have inherent authority to strike PAGA claims on manageability grounds, a trial court can use its case management procedures to ensure that PAGA claims can be tried effectively.

Injunctive relief and attorneys’ fees

PAGA plaintiffs can now seek injunctive relief in any circumstances under which the LWDA could seek injunctive relief–in addition to the civil penalties and reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs PAGA plaintiffs can seek. However, injunctive relief is not available for violation of a posting, notice, agency reporting or filing requirement, unless the filing or reporting requirement involves mandatory payroll or workplace injury reporting.Continue Reading PAGA Reform: A Breath of (Some?) Fresh Air for Employers

This fall, California voters will have the opportunity to decide the fate of the state’s Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA). After receiving more than the 700,000 signatures in support, the “California Employee Civil Action Law and PAGA Repeal Initiative” has qualified for the November 5, 2024 state ballot. If the initiative passes, PAGA will be repealed and replaced with the “Fair Pay and Employer Accountability Act,” which will double the statutory and civil penalties for willful state labor law violations, require 100% of monetary penalties be awarded to employees, and provide resources to employers to ensure compliance with wage and hour laws. The new law will preclude plaintiffs’ attorneys from recovering any fees in actions brought under the statute and impose other requirements to effectively “de-deputize” citizen attorneys general.

What Would the New Law Do?

In response to wide ranging criticism of PAGA, the ballot initiative seeks to repeal and replace PAGA with the Fair Pay and Employer Accountability Act. If passed, the initiative would:

  • Double statutory and civil penalties for willful violations;
  • Award 100% of monetary penalties to employees (instead of the current 25%);
  • Provide resources to employers to ensure labor compliance and allow employers opportunities to cure violations without penalties;
  • Require that the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement (DLSE) be a party to all labor complaints;
  • Prohibit award of attorneys’ fees (which are currently permitted under PAGA); and
  • Require that the state legislature fully fund the DLSE to meet the division’s requirements by law.

Continue Reading Is the End in Sight for PAGA Actions? Californians May Vote “YES” on November 5, 2024.

The new year brought some good news for California employers. On January 1, 2024, U.S. District Court Judge Kimberly Mueller issued a decision permanently enjoining California state officials from enforcing AB 51, the contested law that sought to prohibit employers from “forcing” job applicants or employees to enter into pre-dispute employment arbitration agreements covering certain discrimination and retaliation claims. The permanent injunction reaffirmed the ability of employers to mandate arbitration for most employment disputes.

This decision comes less than a year after the Ninth Circuit found that the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) preempts AB 51 in Chamber of Commerce of the United States v. Bonta. As noted in our blog post on the Bonta decision, the Ninth Circuit ultimately upheld a temporary injunction against AB 51, allowing California employers to continue to use employment arbitration agreements while the matter was litigated, and which—given Judge Mueller’s permanent injunction—now can continue indefinitely.

The Lead Up: Recap of the AB 51 Litigation Battle

Here is a quick summary of the AB 51 litigation leading up to the January 1, 2024 permanent injunction:

  • In December 2019, Judge Mueller issued a temporary restraining order, prohibiting California from enforcing AB 51.
  • In September 2021, the Ninth Circuit struck down Judge Mueller’s decision to temporarily restrain California from enforcing AB 51, holding that AB 51 was not largely preempted by the FAA.
  • In August 2022, the Ninth Circuit withdrew its September 2021 decision and voted to take another look at the case through a panel rehearing.
  • In February 2023, the Ninth Circuit, backtracking on their September 2021 decision, held that AB 51 is preempted by the FAA because the deterring penalties that AB 51 imposes on employers is antithetical to the FAA’s policy of favoring arbitration agreements.

Continue Reading End of the AB 51 Saga: California Employers Can and Should Continue Using Arbitration Agreements

California’s latest attempt to restrict employment arbitration was foiled by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals last Wednesday. On February 15, 2023, a three-judge panel decided that AB 51 (which prohibits employers from “forcing” job applicants or employees to enter into pre-dispute employment arbitration agreements covering certain discrimination and retaliation claims) is preempted by the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA). In doing so, the Ninth Circuit reversed its prior decision in the same case, issued by the same three-judge panel, which partially upheld AB 51 in 2021. While we expect the California Attorney General to challenge the Ninth Circuit’s February 15 decision, California employers can breathe a sigh of relief for now knowing it’s still lawful for most to continue to require arbitration agreements.Continue Reading California Employers Still Can Require Arbitration. For Now.

The new year always brings new challenges for employers, but California employers in particular face a world of change in 2023.

In our 75-minute “quick hits” format, we help you track what California employers need to keep top-of-mind for 2023 and provide practical takeaways to help you navigate the new landscape.

This webinar helps to…

The U.S. Supreme Court just handed employers a huge win in the continuing war over California’s Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA), a bounty-hunter statute that deputizes employees to sue on behalf of the state. In yesterday’s Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana, decision, the Supreme Court held that employers may compel employees to arbitrate…

On March 3, President Biden signed the “Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act,” H.R. 4445, into law. The landmark legislation allows a plaintiff to elect not to arbitrate covered disputes of sexual assault or sexual harassment. To understand the implications of the new law, click here.

President Biden is expected to sign into law landmark #MeToo legislation, which allows a plaintiff to elect not to arbitrate covered disputes of sexual assault or sexual harassment. The “Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act of 2021,” amends the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), by narrowing its scope and applicability. The bill’s passage had bipartisan support in both the House and the Senate.

Historically, some employers have implemented arbitration programs that require both the employer and its employees to arbitrate most or all types of employment claims, including claims alleging sexual harassment or sexual assault. Largely in response to the #MeToo movement, which began in late 2017, some states passed laws designed to prohibit or restrict employers from requiring employees to arbitrate sexual harassment or sexual assault claims. For example, in New York, employers are prohibited from requiring the arbitration of sexual harassment claims except where inconsistent with federal law. New York’s prohibition on mandatory arbitration in relation to sexual harassment claims went into effect on July 11, 2018, and it has applied to contracts entered into on or after that date. New Jersey and California have enacted similar laws. New Jersey’s law prohibits any provision of an arbitration agreement that waives a substantive or procedural right or remedy relating to employment discrimination, harassment, and retaliation claims. This law applies to all contracts and agreements entered into, renewed, modified, or amended on or after March 18, 2019. Further, on October 10, 2019, California enacted a law, which prohibits employers from requiring employees to sign new mandatory arbitration agreements concerning disputes arising under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) or California Labor Code.  California’s law applies only to agreements dated January 1, 2020 or after. However, courts have found these statutes to be pre-empted by the FAA.

On February 7, 2022, the U.S. House of Representatives overwhelmingly passed H.R. 4445, 335 to 97. Shortly thereafter, on February 10, 2022, the bill passed the Senate in an unrecorded voice vote.Continue Reading Landmark #MeToo Legislation Allows Employees To Pursue Sexual Harassment & Assault Claims In Court, Rather Than Arbitration

On December 30, 2019, Judge Kimberly Mueller in the Eastern District of California issued a temporary restraining order that enjoined California from enforcing AB 51. AB 51 prohibits employers from requiring, as a condition of employment, employees’ waiver of any right, forum, or procedure for an alleged violation of the California Fair Employment and Housing Act or the California Labor Code. (For more on AB 51, read here).
Continue Reading Stop! In The Name Of The Federal Arbitration Act