Supreme Court

Subscribe to Supreme Court via RSS

On January 18, 2024, the California Supreme Court issued its long-awaited opinion in Estrada v. Royalty Carpet Mills to decide the question of whether California trial courts have inherent authority to strike claims brought under California’s Private Attorneys General Act (“PAGA”) on the grounds that the claims were not manageable.  The Court ultimately upheld the appellate court’s holding, which we previously discussed in detail here, finding that trial courts do not have such inherent authority.Continue Reading California Supreme Court Sweeps PAGA Manageability Under the Rug in Estrada v. Royalty Carpet Mills

Introduction

With its decision in Adolph v. Uber Technologies, Inc. (“Adolph”) the California Supreme Court has reignited the debate surrounding arbitration agreements containing waivers of an employee’s right to bring a representative action under California’s Private Attorneys General Act (“PAGA”).  This ruling, which challenges the earlier decision by the U.S. Supreme Court in Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana (“Viking River Cruises”), marks a significant shift back in favor of employees and their ability to pursue PAGA claims notwithstanding the existence of a written waiver. Continue Reading Driving the Narrative: California Supreme Court’s Adolph v. Uber Technologies Decision Shifts Gears, Challenging U.S. Supreme Court’s Viking River Cruises v. Moriana Holding

Today the United States Supreme Court answered the question of whether Title VII, the federal law that prohibits workplace discrimination “on the basis of sex,” protects LGBT employees with a resounding “Yes.”  In a 6-3 decision, the Court held that: “The answer is clear. An employer who fires an individual for being homosexual or transgender…

On Tuesday, August 20, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in a case entitled Murray v. Mayo Clinic, joined four other Circuit Courts of Appeal in holding that a “but for” causation standard applies in ADA discrimination claims.  This standard is considered to make it more difficult for employees to prove discrimination claims than…

Prior to the California Supreme Court’s decision in Wilson vs. Cable News Network, Inc., California Courts of Appeal were split on whether California’s anti-SLAPP statute applied to an employee’s claims of discrimination and retaliation.  The Supreme Court in Wilson resolved this split in favor of the statute’s application, bringing a welcome bit of good…

In Connor v. First Student, Inc., the California Supreme Court resolved a conflict in Court of Appeal decisions relating to the constitutionality of California’s background check laws.

Employers frequently request background information from job applicants.  California has two primary laws regulating the collection and distribution of this background information:  the Investigative Consumer Reporting Agencies…

In Troester v. Starbucks Corp., the California Supreme Court determined that the federal de minimis doctrine does not apply to California wage claims.  While this ruling does not completely eviscerate this legal defense for California employers, it places a very high burden on employers who are brave enough to raise this defense in California…

In yet another significant victory for employers, the United States Supreme Court has held that the First Amendment prohibits public sector unions from collecting mandatory “agency fees” from non-union members who do not consent to the payment of fees.  The Court’s ruling in Janus v. AFSCME, Council 31 overturns prior precedent that allowed public sector unions to collect these mandatory fees from employees who choose not to be a part of the union.
Continue Reading Supreme Court Rules Mandatory Union Fees for Public Sector Employees are Unconstitutional