california

In Husband v. Target Corp., a California appellate court held that FEHA disability liability does not arise where an employer lacked actual or imputed knowledge of an employee’s disability at the time of termination, offering useful guidance for California employers on accommodation obligations.
Continue Reading California Appellate Court Clarifies Standard for Knowledge of Employee’s Disability

On Jan. 28, 2026, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in Avery v. TEKsystems, Inc. affirmed a district court order refusing to enforce an arbitration agreement rolled out during class litigation.
Continue Reading Ninth Circuit Warns California Employers Implementing Arbitration Agreements Mid-Litigation

As California employers head into another year of compliance planning, the Golden State legislature has not slowed down. From higher wage thresholds and expanded pay-equity rules to sweeping changes affecting

Continue Reading ’Tis the Season for California’s New Employment Laws: Employer Considerations for 2026

On Aug. 21, 2025, the California Supreme Court issued its decision in Iloff v. LaPaille (18 Cal. 551 (2025)), addressing the standard employers must meet in order to assert a

Continue Reading Ignorance Is Not Bliss for Employers Asserting Good Faith Defense to Liquidated Damages in Minimum Wage Claims

When employers offer new hires a sign-on bonus or existing employees a retention bonus, they typically structure the bonuses as an upfront payment subject to a conditional repayment obligation if

Continue Reading California Claws Back: New Limits on Stay-or-Pay Contracts Starting Jan. 1, 2026

In a significant decision for employers, plan administrators, and ERISA practitioners, the Ninth Circuit’s recent ruling in Zavislak v. Netflix, Inc. reaffirms a narrow interpretation of the disclosure requirements under ERISA Section 104(b)(4) and offers insight into how courts may treat compliance delays during extraordinary circumstances.

Continue Reading ERISA Document Disclosure: Zavislak v. Netflix, Inc. and the Ninth Circuit’s Narrow Reading of Section 104