While the status of independent contractors versus employees seems to be in a constant state of flux in California, one thing is certain: fewer and fewer workers actually qualify for IC status. Indeed, in a ruling that could once again change the status of workers across the state, the California Supreme Court recently made it…
DetailsSchool’s out for summer… And that means many employees are requesting time off for family vacations, making now a great time for your business to review its vacation policy. Vacation policies must be compliant with California law and also meet company needs. While paid vacation is not mandatory in California, if an employer has offered…
DetailsThe 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…
DetailsRetailer 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…
DetailsMost 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…
DetailsThe 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…
DetailsJoseph 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…
DetailsIn 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”)…
DetailsDrew 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.
