Many companies now require employees to agree to arbitration of any claims that the employee may have against the employer. Most employees do not know that they have signed an agreement to arbitrate, or what arbitration is. Arbitration is essentially a private court system. Private companies hire retired judges and lawyers to hear cases, confidentially, […]
Read more...Blog
Challenging Electronic Signatures in Arbitration Agreements
Many companies now require employees to agree to arbitration of any claims that the employee may have against the employer. They do so for several reasons: (1) Employers want to prevent their employees from bringing class actions; (2) Employers think they are more likely to win in arbitration than before a jury and that if they lose the verdict will be lower; (3) Arbitration is a great way for employers to drag out the process; and (4) Appeals from arbitration decisions are normally limited in scope.
Many such companies now use some kind of electronic on-boarding process. These processes often include an agreement to arbitrate that is so buried in other documents that the employee does not notice it. But some employees are brave enough not to sign the arbitration agreement. Accordingly, it is important to figure out at the outset of a case whether the employee actually signed an arbitration agreement. Continue reading “Challenging Electronic Signatures in Arbitration Agreements”
Read more...Severing Unconscionable Terms in an Arbitration Agreement: Guidance from the California Supreme Court
Employers use arbitration agreements to try to accomplish two main things: to force employees out of court and into a form that is less favorable to the employees and to prevent employees from bringing class actions. However, employers cannot force employees to comply with arbitration agreements that are unfairly one-sided. Such agreements can be voided if they are both procedurally and substantively unconscionable.
On July 15, 2024, the California Supreme Court issued its opinion in the case of Ramirez v. Charter Communications Inc. (2024) 16 Cal.5th 478, clarifying four issues that often arise when plaintiffs are challenging arbitration agreements as unconscionable:
- Whether excluding from arbitration claims that the employer is more likely to bring is unconscionable;
- Whether a shortened limitations periods for filing is unconscionable;
- Whether limitations on discovery such as a limited number of permitted depositions are unsconscionable; and
- Whether arbitration agreements can provide for the potential of an unlawful award of attorney fees.
PAGA and Public Entities: The End of an Era
On August 30, 2024, the California Supreme Court considered the question of whether plaintiffs could recover PAGA penalties against public entities in a case called Stone v. Alameda Health System (“AHS”).
This question had previously been addressed in a court of appeal case called Sargent v. Board of Trustees of California State University (2021) 61 Cal.App.5th 658. In Sargent, the court held that PAGA penalties could be collected against public entities if the underlying Labor Code section provided for a specific penalty (as opposed to the default penalties under Labor Code section 2699(a)).
The Supreme Court concluded, contrary to Sargent, that public entity employers are not subject to PAGA suits for civil penalties for the following reasons:
- The Labor Code’s definition of “employers” did not include public entities; and
- PAGA exempts public entity employers from penalties for violations of Labor Code provisions carrying their own specific penalties.
Continue reading “PAGA and Public Entities: The End of an Era”
Read more...Timing is Everything for California Whistleblowers
If you are an employee who has reported something in the workplace that you thought broke some kind of law, this article is for you. 
Continue reading “Timing is Everything for California Whistleblowers”
Read more...The Role of the “Same Decision” Defense in California Whistleblower Cases
Whistleblower cases in California differ from discrimination cases in several important ways. Among other things, Section 1102.6 of the Whistleblower Protection Act (found in the California Labor Code) provides that where an employee proves by a preponderance of the evidence that discriminatory activity was a “contributing factor” with respect to a discriminatory act, the burden […]
Read more...Attorneys’ Fees in Individual Wage and Hour Cases
California Labor Code section 1194 provides that an employee who is paid less than the legally-required minimum wage or overtime compensation who prevails in a civil action can recover their reasonable attorney’s fees and costs of suit. This provision is important, because many individual wage and hour claims are small, and, absent the possibility of […]
Read more...The Transportation Worker Exemption: What it is, why it matters, and what we can learn from two 2024 cases addressing it.
In recent years, many employers have sought to shield themselves from class actions, as well as individual claims of all sorts, by requiring their workers to sign arbitration agreements. These agreements usually bar any kind of collective action. They also require workers to proceed in arbitration forums rather than in court. The reason for this […]
Read more...When are Temporary Workers owed Their Final Wages?
Payment of final wages upon termination (or resignation) can be a big deal in California. Labor Code sections 201-203 set forth important rules that employers must follow, and can result in stiff penalties when they are violated: up to 30 days of pay at the employee’s regular daily wages.
A recent California Court of Appeal decision explores the question of when temporary workers are owed their final wages. In Young v. REMX Specialty Staffing (2023) 91 Cal.App.5th 427, the plaintiff was hired by a temporary staffing agency in July 2013. She was then assigned to a Bank of the West location and, soon thereafter, terminated. The plaintiff then sued, claiming that she had not been properly paid her final wages upon the termination of her employment.
The case thus turned on California Labor Code section 201.3(b)(4), which provides that if an employee of a temporary services employer is assigned to work for a client and is discharged by the temporary services employer or leasing employer, wages are due and payable immediately. Continue reading “When are Temporary Workers owed Their Final Wages?”
Read more...California Whistleblower Protections Cover Complaints that Employers Already Know About
On May 22, 2023, the California Supreme Court issued an important decision clarifying that employers violate the law if they terminate or retaliate against employees who complain about violations that were
already known to the employer. In People ex rel. Garcia-Brower v. Kolla’s (S269456), the employee worked for a nightclub in Orange County. She complained that she had not been paid for her three previous work shifts. The employer then threatened to report her to immigration authorities and fired her.
The plaintiff then filed a complaint with the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement (DLSE) of the State of California’s Department of Industrial Relations. The DLSE investigated and prosecuted her complaint. Unfortunately, the trial court held that Labor Code section 1102.5, California’s whistleblower protection law, did not apply because the employee had complained to her employer rather than to a government agency. The court of appeal affirmed on different grounds, holding that in order to be protected under section 1102.5, an employee’s complaint must report something that the employer was not already aware of. Continue reading “California Whistleblower Protections Cover Complaints that Employers Already Know About”
Read more...