The California Supreme Court recently ruled that employers must pay their workers for small amounts of time they spend on routine work tasks off the clock. In the case Troester v. Starbucks Corp., the Court rejected the notion that the “de minimis” doctrine commonly applied by federal courts would automatically or routinely excuse the payment…Details
Retailer challenges Consumer Advocacy Group on statute of limitations and lack of evidence. In the closely watched case of Consumer Advocacy Group, Inc. v. National Stores, Inc., the Los Angeles Superior Court last week entered a judgment against Consumer Advocacy Group (CAG), stating it failed to meet its burden of proof, violated the one-year statute…Details
Most businesses—of all sizes—have employee handbooks. The handbook is a policy manual that serves as the governing document for the business’s workplace and human resources operations. The handbook not only provides the “playbook” for expectations about workplace practices and culture, but it can also serve as valuable evidence in a lawsuit. An employer should draft…Details
The United States Supreme Court has ruled in a 5-4 decision that employers have a right to require employees resolve claims against employers individually, rather than on a class-action basis. Workers routinely sign arbitration agreements in their hiring paperwork, and before the decision in Epic Systems v. Lewis, there was a conflict in the law…Details
Joseph Gjonola talks about the recent opinion Planned Parenthood Fed’n of Am., Inc. v. Ctr. for Med. Progress (“PPF”) on LAW360 and how it all but gutted California’s anti-SLAPP procedure when it comes to motions filed in federal court.
When Daily Journal reporter Melanie Brisbon needed an expert to comment on a recent appellate decision in the case Ryan Smythe v. Uber Technologies Inc., she reached out to RPNA’s Co-Managing Partner Nick Roxborough. In this case, the state appellate court denied Uber’s motion to compel arbitration of an action brought by one of its…Details
In a long awaited landmark ruling, the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that under the Federal Arbitration Act (“Arbitration Act”) arbitration agreements requiring individualized proceedings, barring the ability of an employee to bring or participate in a class action, must be enforced and neither the Arbitration Act’s saving clause nor the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA”)…Details
Drew Pomerance has been named Class Actions Lawyer of the Year by Finance Monthly, a multi-platform publication that provides finance news and analysis to a global readership of C-suite executives, company directors, investors and entrepreneurs.
RPNA’s Nick Roxborough commented about his current case against Applied Underwriters in a Workers’ Comp Executive article that discusses the growing number of disputes involving Applied Underwriters’ EquityComp program since the California Department of Insurance (CDI) handed down its precedential decision several years ago in the Shasta Linen case.
A California Supreme Court decision last week fundamentally alters how courts will classify workers as employees or independent contractors when it comes to compliance with wage orders. The decision could potentially apply to all areas of employment law and generally will make it harder for businesses to prove its workers are independent contractors. The decision,…Details