Severing Unconscionable Terms in Employment Arbitration Agreements  | By: Jared W. Slater 

In August 2000, the California Supreme Court handed down a landmark ruling that changed the face of employment arbitration agreements going forward.  That case, known as Armendariz v. Foundation Health Psychcare Services, Inc., clarified the standards of “procedural” and “substantive” unconscionability in these agreements.  While Armendariz is commonly cited for its holdings on these different types of unconscionability, a lesser aspect of the holding, which was largely unremarked upon for nearly 25 years, dealt with the issue of severing unconscionable ...

Can You Collaterally Attack a Receiver’s Appointment?

Q: I am a receiver for a partnership. I was appointed pursuant to a stipulation between the current partners and a secured creditor. After an extensive investigation, I have sued the former managing partner and her mother to recover fraudulent transfers, for breach of fiduciary duty and for usurping partnership opportunities. They are contending, in defense, that I cannot maintain my lawsuit because my appointment is not valid, because the current partners, having purportedly wrongfully removed the former managing partner, had no right to stipulate to my appointment. Can they ...

Changes to PAGA Create Opportunities for Employers to Minimize Penalties |  By: Tanner Hosfield

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 ...

Overbroad Employment Arbitration Agreements Will Not Be Enforced in California | By: Jared W. Slater 

Arbitration agreements, at their core, are contracts. As with any contract, there must be “mutuality” or, more colloquially, a “meeting of the minds” on what the contract is intended to encompass. For this reason, employment arbitration agreements are typically limited in scope and drafted to cover only claims or causes of action arising from or related to the relationship between the employee and employer.

 A recent case involving the University of Southern California illustrates the importance of careful drafting. An issue in Cook v. University of Southern California

Posted in Legal Bites
LA Al Fresco Deadline Extended | By: Pooja S. Nair 

On Tuesday, July 30, 2024, Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass announced that the deadline for restaurant owners to apply for the city’s permanent Al Fresco program has been extended to December 31, 2024. This means that any restaurants with temporary authorization may continue to offer outdoor dining. The LA Al Fresco program is a popular initiative that came out of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020. Restaurants were able to apply for temporary authorizations to enable them to use sidewalks and street space for outdoor dining.

The city had previously announced that Al Fresco Temporary ...

The Battle for Supremacy: Federal Arbitration Act v. California Arbitration Act | By: Jared W. Slater 

Since its enactment, California courts have universally established the California Code of Civil Procedure section 1281.97 et seq., which governs the timely payment of fees in arbitration, allows no room for error. Within the last two months, the California Court of Appeals issued two competing decisions addressing whether the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”) preempts the California Arbitration Act (“CAA”), and by extension the statutory fee payment deadline set forth in section 1281.97.

In this corner, fighting for federal preemption, is Hernandez v. Sohnen ...

Another Blow to E-Signed Arbitration Agreements in California By: Jared W. Slater 

        Over the last decade, the use of e-signatures has become the norm for human resources departments when onboarding new employees.  The advent of resources like DocuSign, Taleo, BabooHR, and others have made this process simple, efficient, and very user friendly.  But with these technological advances comes increased scrutiny from California courts – particularly when evaluating electronically signed arbitration agreements.

            Generally, for an e-signed arbitration agreement to be enforced, an employer must demonstrate, beyond a “preponderance of evidence”, that the ...

Employer Reminder: Local Minimum Wage Increases on July 1, 2024 and Current Mileage Rates | By: Kelly O. Scott

July 1st Minimum Wage Increases

Each year on July 1st, a number of local municipalities and the County of Los Angeles raise their hourly minimum wage, based on changes to the consumer price index, and as required by local minimum wage ordinances. In contrast, and as we previously reported here, California customarily issues its annual hourly minimum wage rates each January 1st.

Beginning July 1, 2024, the following increases will apply to employers in the designated areas:

SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA

Municipality

Prior Minimum Wage

Minimum Wage on July 1, 2024

City of Los Angeles

(excluding ...

Governor Signs Law Exempting Restaurants From New Hidden Fees Law |  By: Cate A. Veeneman

Over the weekend, Governor Newsom signed Senate Bill 1524 into law, an emergency provision clarifying that Senate Bill 478, the “hidden fees” law that went into effect this week, will not apply to restaurants, bar, food concessions, grocery stores, or grocery delivery services in the same way it will apply to businesses in other industries. SB 1524 arose from concern in the restaurant industry regarding the impact SB 478 would have on restaurants following the issuance of guidelines from the California Attorney General Office in May.

As a reminder, SB 478 revises applicable code ...

Workplace Violence Prevention Plans and Trainings Must be Implemented by July 1 |  By: Jared Slater

If you missed our last reminder, there is less than a week for most California employers to finalize and implement Workplace Violence Prevention Plans (“WVPP”) and have their employees trained on the company-specific policies by July 1, 2024.

As part of implementing the Workplace Violence Prevention Plan, an employer’s designated “Crime/Workplace Violence Prevention Coordinator(s)” must physically go through each office or workplace and identify potential areas of concern or improvement and record their efforts in doing so.

Similarly, each Crime/Workplace ...

Subscribe

Recent Posts

Blogs

Contributors

Archives

Jump to PageX

ECJ uses cookies to enhance your experience on our website, to better understand how our website is used and to help provide security. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies. For more information see our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.