Featured Insights

Payne & Fears provides high quality legal and business insights, and we are committed to delivering practical and timely updates for a diverse range of issues, businesses and industries.

Labor and Employment Law
Oct 15 | Labor and Employment Law
On October 10, 2019, Governor Gavin Newsom signed into law a new bill (AB 51) that will have substantial impact on the employment litigation landscape in California.
Insurance Coverage
Sep 26 | Insurance Coverage
The California Supreme Court has struck a blow to insurers' attempts to contract out of more policyholder friendly jurisdictions, holding that the notice-prejudice rule is a fundamental public policy. Pitzer College v. Indian Harbor Insurance Co., 2019 WL 4065521.
Business Litigation
Jan 03 | Business Litigation
Read about challenges presented by third party discovery in arbitration and strategies for obtaining such discovery efficiently and expeditiously.
E.g., 11/12/2019
E.g., 11/12/2019
Grid View
List View
Legal Alert, Labor and Employment Law
Oct 15 | Legal Alert, Labor and Employment Law
On October 10, 2019, Governor Gavin Newsom signed into law a new bill (AB 51) that will have substantial impact on the employment litigation landscape in California.
Legal Alert, Labor and Employment Law
Oct 11 | Legal Alert, Labor and Employment Law
On October 10, 2019, Governor Gavin Newsom signed AB 9 into law, extending the statute of limitations for claims under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act ("FEHA"), California's comprehensive employment anti-discrimination, anti-retaliation, and anti-harassment law. While FEHA claims have long been subject to a one-year statute of limitations, AB 9 triples the limitations period to three years.
Legal Alert, Labor and Employment Law
Oct 10 | Legal Alert, Labor and Employment Law
Ever since the California Supreme Court issued its groundbreaking decision in Dynamex Operations W., Inc. v. Superior Ct., 4 Cal. 5th 903 (2018), we have been monitoring its application by the lower courts. On October 8, 2019, the California Court of Appeal issued two decisions clarifying the scope of Dynamex. The outcome is a mixed bag for employers.
Legal Alert, Labor and Employment Law
Oct 04 | Legal Alert, Labor and Employment Law
The California Court of Appeal recently ruled that a "wage and hour" exclusion in an employment practices liability insurance ("EPLI") policy must be narrowly interpreted to extend coverage for reimbursement claims.
Legal Alert, Insurance Coverage
Sep 26 | Legal Alert, Insurance Coverage
The California Supreme Court has struck a blow to insurers' attempts to contract out of more policyholder friendly jurisdictions, holding that the notice-prejudice rule is a fundamental public policy. Pitzer College v. Indian Harbor Insurance Co., 2019 WL 4065521.
Legal Alert, Labor and Employment Law
Sep 18 | Legal Alert, Labor and Employment Law
Today, Governor Gavin Newsom signed California Assembly Bill 5 (“AB5”), controversial legislation which will have a substantial impact on California employers when it goes into effect on January 1, 2020.
Legal Alert, Labor and Employment Law
Sep 09 | Legal Alert, Labor and Employment Law
On August 29, 2019, the California Supreme Court held in OTO, L.L.C. v. Kho, S244630, that a mandatory arbitration agreement may be unenforceable against employee wage claims if it requires the employee to forego the “Berman” hearing process and adhere to procedures that are more similar to civil litigation.
Article, Labor and Employment Law
Aug 16 | Article, Labor and Employment Law
On August 8, 2019, the Department of Labor issued an Opinion Letter explaining that employees may take leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”) to attend a meeting discussing their child’s Individualized Education Plan (“IEP”).
Legal Alert, Labor and Employment Law
Aug 06 | Legal Alert, Labor and Employment Law
While the California Labor Code specifies that an off-duty meal period must consist of at least 30 minutes of uninterrupted time during which the employee is relieved of all duties, the duration requirement for an on-duty meal period has been less clear—until now.

Pages