In 2018, in response to the #MeToo movement, California passed SB 820, the STAND (Stand Together Against Non-Disclosure) Act. SB 820 prohibited using confidentiality provisions in settlement agreements in cases involving claims of sexual assault, sexual harassment, and workplace harassment or discrimination based on sex. We blogged about SB820 previously here. After SB 820 became… Read More
Posts Categorized In: Employment Agreements
Note to Employers: Craft Your Arbitration Agreements Carefully
A recent Court of Appeal decision underscores the importance of reviewing severability provisions in arbitration agreements. In Kec V. Superior Court, Plaintiff Nichole Kec brought individual, class, and Private Attorneys General Act (“PAGA”) claims against her former employer, defendants R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company and Reynolds American, Inc. (“Reynolds”), as well as three individual employees at… Read More
Supreme Court Bombshell: Title VII Protects LGBTQ Employees from Workplace Discrimination
On June 15, 2020, in Bostock v. Clayton County, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in a 6-3 decision that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”) protects LGBTQ employees from workplace discrimination and assures LGBTQ employees of equal treatment in all “terms and conditions” of employment. Justice Neil Gorsuch, a Trump… Read More
Employers, Beware: Right to Arbitrate can be Waived
Arbitration agreements that are well-drafted and “state-of-the-art” under current California law are key to ensuring that employment disputes will be resolved by final and binding arbitration. But a recent California Court of Appeal case – Fleming Distribution Co. v. Younan (Cal. Ct. App., May 15, 2020, No. A157038) 2020 WL 2511680 – is a cautionary… Read More
Pay Your Arbitration Fees Late? Risk Losing Your Right to Arbitrate
Senate Bill (“SB”) 707, which became effective on January 1, 2020, creates substantial consequences for employers that fail to pay the costs and fees associated with the arbitration on time. Specifically, after January 1, 2020, an employer that fails to pay arbitration fees within 30 days after such fees are due will be held to… Read More
Court Blocks AB 51 From Taking Effect on January 1, 2020
AB 51 was signed by Governor Newsom back in October 2019. AB 51 generally prohibited employers from requiring employees, as a condition of employment, to agree to arbitrate any future Labor Code claims and/or Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”) claims. AB 51 also made it illegal for employers to use an “opt out” provision… Read More
Three New Cases on the Enforceability of Arbitration Agreements
In the employment context, an arbitration agreement is a contract between an employer and an employee in which the parties agree to resolve disputes in front of an arbitrator rather than in civil court. These agreements are often standard in new hire paperwork. Employers like arbitration because it is considered to be more efficient and… Read More
Independent Contractors Remain Dangerous for California Employers
As we blogged about last year here, in May 2018 the California Supreme Court issued a landmark decision in Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. Superior Court and dramatically changed the standard for determining whether California workers could be classified as employees or independent contractors. One key question that the Dynamex court explicitly refused to decide was whether… Read More
Clever Contract Language Cannot Defeat Labor Code 218.5’s Fee-Shifting Effect
Under existing California law, an employee who prevails on his/her claims against an employer for non-payment of wages is entitled to recover his/her attorneys’ fees in addition to the unpaid wages owed. But the same is not true for an employer who prevails. Under existing California law, an employer is not entitled to recover its… Read More
SCOTUS Rules Employees Cannot Band Together in Class Arbitrations
In yet another split 5-4 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Lamps Plus v. Varela that employees at a California business could not band together in a class-wide arbitration. Instead, the Supreme Court ruled, each employee was required to proceed independently in an individual arbitration. The Supreme Court acknowledged that the arbitration agreement that… Read More
