The landscape of wage enforcement in California has fundamentally changed with the enactment of Senate Bill 261 (SB 261), a law designed to eliminate the otherwise questionable strategy of ignoring wage judgments. Unlike a related measure that was vetoed, SB 261 is set to take effect on January 1, 2026, and introduces a massive financial risk for employers who fail to satisfy court-ordered judgments.

At the heart of SB 261 is a hard 180-day deadline. If a final, non-appealable judgment for unpaid wages remains unsatisfied after this period, the employer faces a civil penalty that can ...

Similar to federal EEO-1 reporting, private employers in California with 100 or more employees must submit pay data to the Civil Rights Department (CRD) by the second Wednesday in May each year.  The data must include the number of employees by race, ethnicity, and sex within ten job categories, within U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics pay bands, and the total number of hours worked by each employee counted within each pay band during a reporting year.  Mean and median hourly pay rates by race, ethnicity, and sex are also required.  The data is required to enable the CRD to enforce civil rights ...

Q: You have previously written about how the ultra vires exception to the Barton Doctrine is extremely narrow, highlighting a Texas case, In re Preferred Ready-Mix, LLC. When last discussed, you mentioned the bankruptcy debtor had appealed the district court’s decision that the debtor was barred from suing the receiver. Has the appeal been resolved?

A: Yes. In an unpublished decision, issued on New Years Eve, the Fifth Circuit reversed. While the decision was bad for the receiver involved, the result is actually consistent with the legal reasoning in the district court decision ...

Among the nearly 800 laws signed by Governor Newsom in 2025, Senate Bill 642 passed with little fanfare.  This may be because SB 642 seems, at first glance, to be clerical in nature.  However, California employers should not be lulled by this characterization as the statute is anything but routine.  SB 642 is a significant expansion of law which should prompt employers to thoroughly review their compensation practices.

SB 642 begins simply enough by revising the definition of “pay scale”.  Labor Code section 432.5 already requires employers to share pay scale information with job ...

The California Court of Appeal's ruling in Gurganus v. IGS Solutions LLC reinforces a critical lesson for California employers: courts will meticulously examine the cumulative effect of all related employment agreements when determining if an arbitration agreement is truly mutual. The court affirmed the trial court's decision to deny IGS’ motion to compel arbitration, concluding that the company's Arbitration Agreement, when read together with the concurrent Confidentiality and Non-Disclosure Agreement (the “Confidentiality Agreement”), was permeated with ...

The recent appellate decision in Villalobos v. Maersk, Inc. et al. delivers a potent warning to California employers regarding the limits of arbitration agreements and the need for careful drafting, particularly for workforces engaged in interstate commerce. The litigation began when a logistics employee, who handled cargo moving through foreign and interstate commerce, sued Maersk for wage violations, including claims under the Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA). When Maersk attempted to compel arbitration based on a signed employment agreement, the trial court ...

On the heels of the California Supreme Court’s ruling in Hohenshelt v. Superior Court, the California Court of Appeal’s recent decision in Wilson v. TAP Worldwide, LLC has provided welcome clarity and significant breathing room for employers by limiting the punitive consequences of Code of Civil Procedure section 1281.98. Specifically, the appellate court confirmed that a mere administrative oversight in fee payment will not automatically result in both the forfeiture of the employer’s right to arbitrate and the substantial fee-shifting penalties of the statute.

The ...

It is a fundamental principle of trademark law that the first person to actually use a trademark in commerce has priority over that mark. “Use in commerce” is defined by statute to mean “the bona fide use of a mark in the ordinary course of trade.” A mark is deemed to be in use in commerce when it is placed “on the goods or their containers or the displays associated therewith or on the tags or labels affixed thereto.” 

How have courts interpreted this statute in practice?  Can you establish the use of a mark in commerce before you sell any products using that mark? How about years ...

Most business owners think the rules are clear: if there’s a dispute among members in a limited liability company (LLC), the operating agreement and California’s LLC statues control what happens. But a recent case shows that courts can sometimes go off-script.

Consider this scenario: you co-own a small business in an LLC with two partners. They vote you out as manager of the company and bring an action to have the court determine that they acted properly. You counter-sue but do not seek to dissolve the company. You claim your partners breached the operating agreement and their ...

News of several firings based on an employee’s social media post discussing recent events has rekindled the question of whether a private employer can terminate an employee for their social media activity.  While the answer will depend on the specific facts of each situation, private employers in California have more discretion when making termination decisions in this context than employees (or even the employers themselves) might expect.

California is known for leading the nation in establishing legal safeguards for its employees. As a result, it can sometimes come as a ...