On May 14, 2025, the California Court of Appeal issued a decision in Rose v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., addressing whether the California Labor and Workforce Development Agency (LWDA) can be held liable for an employer’s litigation costs in an unsuccessful Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) action where the LWDA was not an active participant.

The plaintiff, a former cashier at Hobby Lobby, filed a representative PAGA action alleging violations of California’s “suitable seating” requirements. Following a nine-day bench trial, the court ruled in favor of Hobby Lobby ...

In Chavez v. Hi-Grade Materials Co., the California Court of Appeal issued a ruling that significantly impacts how and when employees can appeal orders denying class certification, especially in cases involving both class claims and a Private Attorneys General Act (“PAGA”) claim. This decision is particularly important for California employers wary of facing wage-and-hour class actions and PAGA lawsuits.

The plaintiff, a former employee, brought a putative class action alleging various wage-and-hour violations and sought penalties under PAGA. After the trial court ...

The Private Attorneys General Act (“PAGA”), which permits individual employees to sue employers on behalf of themselves, other employees and the State of California to recover civil penalties for California Labor Code violations, has long garnered criticism for excessively penalizing employers and incentivizing frivolous lawsuits.  Business groups had proposed a ballot initiative for the upcoming election that sought to repeal PAGA and replace it with a new law which did not include the state in the collection of civil penalties and which provided resources for employers ...

The Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors recently passed the Los Angeles County Fair Workweek Ordinance (the “Ordinance”), which generally requires that certain retail employers in the unincorporated areas of the County of Los Angeles give workers their schedules two weeks in advance, compensate them for last-minute schedule changes and provide at least ten hours between shifts.  The Ordinance will go into effect on July 1, 2025, and largely duplicates the Los Angeles Fair Work Week Ordinance which became effective in the City of Los Angeles on April 1, 2023. The Ordinance ...

The Federal Trade Commission recently issued a final rule largely banning the use of non-compete agreements nationwide.  The stated purpose of the rule is to address the substantially increased harm non-compete agreements have caused to fair competition in recent years.  While several states, including California, already have similar bans in place, the FTC determined that a nationwide rule was necessary as the state-by-state approach did not adequately address the issue.

The FTC estimates that approximately 30 million workers are currently covered by non-competes.  By wiping ...

On January 1, 2023, Assembly Bill (“AB”) 676 will go into effect, significantly amending the California Franchise Relations Act and Franchise Investment Law.  The provisions of AB 676 will only apply to franchise agreements entered into, amended or renewed on or after January 1, 2023.  If the amendment was initiated by the franchisee and the amendment does not adversely impact the franchisee’s rights, that amendment is not subject to AB 676.

AB 676 prohibits franchise agreements from including a provision requiring the franchisee to disclaim their reliance on ...

On September 5, 2022, Governor Gavin Newsom signed Assembly Bill 257, a controversial and far-reaching law that will have a major impact on California fast food employers and is likely to shape the way the state regulates other industries in the future.

AB 257, the Fast Food Accountability and Standards Recovery Act or FAST Recovery Act, regulates nearly all fast food restaurants in the state and is poised to dramatically shake up regulation of the industry and impose standards far beyond the already high standards set for minimum wages and working conditions as enshrined by ...