Labor & Employment Law Blog

1. Summary of the Ruling

In Gonzalez v. Nowhere Beverly Hills LLC, 2024 WL 4948533 (Dec. 3, 2024), the California Court of Appeal for the Second District held that plaintiff-employees cannot simultaneously allege their employers’ corporate subsidiaries and parent companies acted as “joint employers,” while also attempting to avoid arbitration with these related entities by arguing they were not parties to the employment contract and arbitration agreement.

On April 17, 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision which will make it easier for employees to establish discrimination under Title VII of the U.S Civil Rights Act of 1964. In the case of Muldrow v. City of St. Louis (USSC Case No. 22-193), the Court held that an employee need only show that an employment action brought about "some harm to an identifiable term or condition of employment," as opposed to "materially significant disadvantage” in those terms or conditions. The Court expressly acknowledged that this is a less burdensome standard than those which had been adopted by federal appellate courts in the past, and that "many cases will come out differently" under this new standard. 

Plaintiff attorneys have deluged the courts with wage and hour class actions and PAGA lawsuits.  The first question an employee advocate asks of their potential client is, “can I see a pay stub?”  Instead of agreeing to represent employees for their harassment or wrongful termination claim, they convince the disgruntled ex-employee to act as a representative for a PAGA or class action for improper wage and hour practices. 

Given the current state of the economy, many employers are considering reductions in work hours and potential layoffs.  As businesses consider taking action to save money and prevent potential closure, they must do so carefully in order to manage and reduce risk of future litigation related to its actions.  This blog discusses the appropriate steps that a business must take when conducting a reduction in force (“RIF”).

Recent mass layoffs by tech companies, such as Twitter and Meta, have made headlines.  The massive layoff by Twitter on November 4, 2022 has already resulted in a lawsuit filed by former Twitter employees for violations of the federal Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification (“WARN”) Act.  The WARN Act requires certain employers to provide 60-day advance notice in cases of qualified plant closings and mass layoffs, allowing employees and their families with transition time to seek alternate employment or skills training.

On May 23, 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision in the case of Morgan v. Sundance, Inc., which held a party’s waiver of the right to arbitrate a dispute by virtue of a delay in seeking enforcement of the arbitration agreement, no longer requires a showing of prejudice to the party opposing enforcement of the arbitration agreement. Prior to this, the circuit courts followed the rule of determining whether prejudice existed prior to finding waiver. After the Morgan decision, the analysis reverts to the standard contract waiver analysis “focus[ing] on the actions of the person who held the right; ... [rather than] the effects of those actions on the opposing party.” This new rule applies whenever a party seeks to stay litigation and enforce an arbitration agreement under the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”).

The federal Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”) permits background checks for employment purposes, so long as employers obtain authorization from and provide the appropriate “stand-alone” disclosure to the applicant or employee regarding the background check, among other requirements. Willful violations of the FCRA’s stand-alone disclosure requirement can lead to recovery of statutory damages ranging from $100 to $1,000 per violation. Thus, a central issue in FCRA cases is whether the employer’s violation is “willful,” which requires a showing that the defendant’s conduct was “intentional” or “reckless.” 

Seventeen years ago, in 2004, the California Legislature enacted the Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (“PAGA”).  Appropriately dubbed a “bounty hunter” law, PAGA authorizes any current or former “aggrieved” employee of a California employer to file suit to seek statutory penalties for essentially any violation of the California Labor Code together with attorney’s fees, hence the incentive for plaintiff attorneys to bring such cases.  Specifically, under PAGA a current or former employee who is “aggrieved” by a violation of the California Labor Code can seek in addition to damages and liquidated damages, civil penalties on the employee’s behalf and on behalf of all other similarly “aggrieved” (i.e., affected) current and former employees.  The recoverable civil penalties are up to $100 per employee per pay period for an initial violation and $200 per employee per pay period for each subsequent violation, plus attorney’s fees and litigation costs.  When such penalties are awarded, the plaintiff current or former employee along with all other similar “aggrieved” employee will receive 25% of the penalties together with their attorney’s fees as a “bounty,” with the balance of the penalties payable to a State agency known as the California Labor and Workforce Development Agency.  Click Here to read entire post.

On June 3, 2019, the United States Supreme Court issued a rare unanimous decision authored by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg in Fort Bend County, Texas v. Davis (2019) — S.Ct. —, 2019 WL 2331306.  The Court held the charge-filing requirements specified in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 are not jurisdictional.  If a requirement is jurisdictional, courts may not adjudicate a claim unless the requirement has been met.  Challenges to a court’s subject-matter jurisdiction may be raised by a defendant at any time during litigation.  On the other hand, if a claim-filing requirement is simply a procedural prerequisite to filing a lawsuit, a defendant employer must timely object based on the plaintiff’s failure to comply, or forfeit the objection.