Skip to main content
The California Supreme Court held that aggrieved employees are not entitled to recover their attorney’s fees in lawsuits to obtain pay for missed meal and rest breaks. The Court also banned employers from recovering...
March 11, 2014
California Court of Appeal Upholds the Use of Class Action Waivers in Employment Arbitration Agreements
Summary of Decision In Iskanian v. CLS Transp. Los Angeles, LLC, 2012 WL 1979266 (Cal. Ct. App. June 5, 2012), the California Court of Appeal upheld the use of class action waivers in employment arbitration agreements. Such...
March 11, 2014
California Supreme Court Rejects Insurance Industry’s Attempt to Constrict Coverage for Long-Tail Losses
On August 9, 2012, the California Supreme Court issued its decision in State of Calif. v. Continental Ins. Co., et al., a closely-watched insurance coverage dispute in which several major liability insurers, supported by...
On April 12, 2012, the California Supreme Court in Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Superior Court issued a critical decision regarding break and off-the-clock claims and the standards governing an employer’s obligation to...
March 11, 2014
Federal District Court Issues First Decision Allowing Whistleblower Allegations to Proceed Under Dodd-Frank Act
On September 25, 2012, United States District Court Judge Stefan R. Underhill, District of Connecticut, issued the first decision allowing a plaintiff’s whistleblower allegations against his employer under the Dodd-Frank...
March 11, 2014
Arbitration and Class Action Waivers After Concepcion and D.R. Horton: Courts and the NLRB Reach Divergent Conclusions
Since the U.S. Supreme Court came down with its landmark decision in AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion in April 2011, the legality of individual arbitration agreements has been a hot topic in the employment realm. In...
March 11, 2014
Beginning on January 1, 2013, Commission Agreements for California Employees Must Be In Writing and Signed
The New Requirements Effective January 1, 2013, employers paying sales commission to California employees must enter into written employment agreements with the employees. Labor Code section 2751 previously required...
On February 7, the California Supreme Court decided the issue of whether the federal “mixed motive” defense applies to employment discrimination claims under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA). By way...
On June 24, 2013, the United States Supreme Court clarified the definition of supervisor in employee harassment cases under Title VII. In Vance v. Ball State University, the Court held that only an employee who “is...
“I’m a business litigator, not an insurance specialist. I’ll leave those sleep-inducing insurance issues to the coverage attorneys.” Wrong! Like it or not, if you defend clients in litigation, you must be ready and...
March 11, 2014
The X(Employee) Factor: Anticipating Collateral Litigation Ramifications When Terminating Employees
Partner Tom Vincent published “The X(Employee) Factor: Anticipating Collateral Litigation Ramifications When Terminating Employees” in OC Business Journal General Counsel Awards supplement. ...