Archive for Employment Litigation

AB 9 Now Gives Employees 3 Years to Bring Harassment and Discrimination Claims

On October 10, 2019, Governor Gavin Newsom signed AB 9 into law.  AB 9 extends the deadline for employees to file a charge of employment discrimination, harassment, or retaliation with the Department of Fair Employment and Housing (“DFEH”) from 1 year to 3 years.  The new deadline is…

EPLI Insurance May Cover Some Wage-and-Hour Claims

Employment practices liability insurance (“EPLI”) policies often contain explicit language that excludes from coverage or defense claims that are based on any federal or state wage-and-hour laws.  Recently, the California Fourth Circuit Court of Appeal gave employers a glimmer of hope – and an incentive to push back…

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…

Governor Newsom Signs AB 5 and Codifies Dynamex’s “ABC Test” for Independent Contractors

On September 18, 2019, Governor Newsom signed AB 5 into law and, in the process, fundamentally changed the California economy by making it even harder for a business to qualify a worker as an independent contractor. The Dynamex Decision As readers of this blog know, in May 2018…

Employers Increasingly Using Anti-SLAPP Motions in Retaliation Cases

California’s anti-SLAPP statute allows a defendant to bring a special motion to strike any cause of action in a plaintiff’s lawsuit that arises from “any act of that person in furtherance of the person’s right of petition or free speech under the United States Constitution or the California…

California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act Applies to Virtual Stores

On August 12, 2019, in White v. Square, Inc.. the California Supreme Court answered a novel question — that is, can a plaintiff who has only visited a business’s website but has neither engaged the business’s services, bought any products, or visited the business’ bricks-and-mortar store sue for…

Recent FEHA Amendment on Fee-Shifting is Retroactive

As a direct response to the “Me Too” movement, California enacted a number of new laws in 2018 regarding workplace sexual harassment.  This wave of legislation included an amendment to the section of the Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”) governing fee and cost awards, which was intended…

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…

Employers Can Use Anti-SLAAP Statute to Force Early Screening of Some Employee Claims

California’s anti-SLAPP statute — found in Code of Civil Procedure §425.16 — allows a defendant to request early judicial screening of a legal claim that targets that defendant’s protected free speech or petitioning activities.  Until yesterday, it has been an open question in California as to whether or…

California Bans Hairstyle Discrimination

On July 3, 2019, California Governor Gavin Newsom signed SB 188 — also known as the CROWN Act — and made California the first state in the country to outlaw discrimination based on “natural hair,” including afros, braids, twists, and locks. CROWN stands for Creating a Respectful and…