California Supreme Court

By now, most California employers have heard of AB 5, which, along with the California Supreme Court decision, Dynamex Operations W. Inc. v. Superior Court, 4 Cal. 5th 903


Continue Reading Move Over AB 5, There’s a New Kid on the Block

California employers have frequently been faced with confusing standards for the application of California’s stringent wage statement requirements for employees that routinely travel between states as a function of their
Continue Reading High Court Articulates Test for Applicability of California Wage Statement Requirements to Interstate Workers

Yesterday, the California Supreme Court issued its long-awaited opinion in Kim v. Reins International California, Inc. and unanimously reversed the California Court of Appeal. The Court held an employee does not lose standing to pursue claims under the Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (“PAGA”), Cal. Lab. Code § 2698 et seq., even when that employee settles his individual Labor Code claims asserted in that same action.

In Reins, the plaintiff claimed his employer had misclassified him as an exempt employee. He alleged the usual panoply of Labor Code claims (failure to pay overtime, failure to provide meal and rest breaks, failure to provide accurate wage statements, waiting time penalties) and sought civil penalties under the PAGA. The plaintiff later settled all of his individual claims, but not the PAGA claims.
Continue Reading PAGA Plaintiffs: No Injury, No Problem, Says Unanimous California Supreme Court

On Sept. 18, California Gov. Gavin Newsom signed Assembly Bill 5 (AB5) into law. AB5, effective Jan. 1, 2020, seeks to codify and clarify a California Supreme Court case (
Continue Reading AB5 Update: California Legislature Seeks Shake-Up of Gig Economy; Any Impact of CA Independent Contractor Laws on Franchisors Remains Unclear

On Feb. 8, 2017, the California Supreme Court ruled that California law allows local prosecutors to pursue civil penalties against employers accused of workplace-safety violations under California’s Occupational Safety and

Continue Reading California Supreme Court: Civil Penalties for Employers Accused of Violating California’s Occupational Safety and Health Act

On April 30, 2012, the California Supreme Court issued a decision holding that the fee shifting provisions of California Labor Code sections 128.5 and 1194 do not apply to claims for wages made pursuant California Labor Code section 226.7 for failure to authorize meal and/or rest periods. Kirby v. Immoos Fire Protection, Inc., ____ Cal. 4th ___ (2012).
Continue Reading California Supreme Court’s Kirby Decision: If Money Talks, is This Another Post-Brinker Blow to Meal and Rest Period Claims?

In California, it is well established that non-compete provisions are unenforceable, subject to certain statutory exceptions. But what about non-compete provisions that are ambiguous as to their protection of confidential information or trade secrets? Recently, when faced with such a provision, one California federal court narrowly construed the provision to find it enforceable.
Continue Reading Are Restrictive Covenants Enforceable in California? It Depends.