CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT CONCLUDES THAT MANDATORY BAG SEARCHES ARE COMPENSABLE TIME

by Michelle R. Ferber and Alexandra P. Saddik California employers are governed by industry and occupational specific wage orders issued by the Industrial Welfare Commission.  These orders govern wage and hour requirements for all employees working in California and are liberally construed in favor of the employee. The California Supreme Court’s recent decision in Frlekin v. Apple is no exception.  There,

IMPLICATIONS OF THE CCPA FOR BUSINESSES

by Alexandra Saddik and Jonathan Babione Over the past several years, businesses have faced increased scrutiny with regard to how they protect personal information collected from individuals. California’s legislative response to this issue was to overhaul its existing network of privacy laws by passing the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA). This new privacy framework became effective January 1, 2020 and

CALIFORNIA TRUCKING ASSOCIATION WINS PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION IN AB-5 LAWSUIT

by Alexandra P. Saddik and Jonathan R. Babione On January 16, 2020, the United States District Court for the Southern District of California granted the California Trucking Association (CTA) a preliminary injunction enjoining the state from enforcing AB-5 to motor carriers operating in California. AB-5 codifies the ABC test in the California Supreme Court’s Dynamex decision. Under this law, with

DOES CALIFORNIA LAW REQUIRE TRUCKING COMPANIES TO PAY DRIVERS FOR OFF-THE-CLOCK LAYOVER TIME?

by Jennifer R. Lucas and Jonathan R. Babione As we saw a few days ago (1/6/2020) when the 9th Circuit handed down its opinion in Ridgeway v. Walmart Inc., under certain circumstances, California law may require trucking companies to pay drivers for off-the-clock layover time.  The critical question is whether the employer exercises control over the drivers during those breaks. 

MGA Ruling Guides On Time Limits For Trade Secret Claims

by Stephen Moses On Oct. 29, the California Court of Appeal’s Second Appellate District, Division Eight, issued an opinion in MGA Entertainment Inc. v. Mattel Inc., upholding the trial court’s dismissal of MGA’s trade secret misappropriation claims against Mattel over the irreverent Bratz dolls made by MGA.[1]  MGA appealed the judgment of Superior Court Judge Carolyn B. Kuhl, who granted

Mandatory Arbitration Agreements Declared Illegal for Claims Arising Under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act and the Labor Code

by Michelle R. Ferber and Julie Ann Giammona Beginning January 1, 2020, California employers will be prohibited from requiring an employee or a job applicant to execute a mandatory arbitration agreement that waives a worker’s right to file a civil action in court for alleged violations of the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”), and/or the Labor Code.  FEHA

EMPLOYERS HAVE CAUSE TO REJOICE: UNPAID WAGES ARE NOT RECOVERABLE UNDER PAGA

by Michelle R. Ferber and Julie Ann Giammona In a sweeping victory for employers, the California Supreme Court announced on September 12, 2019, in ZB, N.A. v. Superior Court (Lawson), that employees cannot recover unpaid wages in actions brought pursuant to the Private Attorney General Act (PAGA).  PAGA allows employees to commence representative actions to recover civil penalties on behalf

NINTH CIRCUIT WITHDRAWS ITS PRIOR DECISION ON RETROACTIVE APPLICATION OF DYNAMEX CASE

by Michelle R. Ferber and Julie Ann Giammona On July 22, 2019, a three-judge panel for the Ninth Circuit reversed its May 2, 2019 Vazquez et al. v. Jan-Pro Franchising International decision concluding that the California Supreme Court’s Dynamex decision — which overturned 30 years of case law allowing employers to classify their workers as independent contractors utilizing a multi-factor

NINTH CIRCUIT HOLDS THAT DYNAMEX APPLIES RETROACTIVELY

by Michelle R. Ferber and Connor M. Day On May 2, 2019, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that the California Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Dynamex should apply retroactively.  In Vazquez v. Jan-Pro Franchising Int’l (9th Cir. 17-16096 5/2/210), the Ninth Circuit stated that California law calls for the retroactive application of Dynamex and that doing so is