The California Supreme Court ruled last week that although an agreement between a union and an employer may be relevant to a wage and hour lawsuit and may need to be consulted to resolve it, when the parties’ dispute turns on an interpretation of state law — namely, the meaning of “discharge” under Labor Code section 201 — rather than an interpretation of the agreement itself, such a lawsuit is not preempted and state courts may decide it on the merits. (See, Melendez v. San

A college's investigation and adjudication of a student's accusation of sexual assault was fatally flawed where the college did not comply with its own disciplinary policies and procedures. The disciplinary panel did not hear testimony from critical witnesses, yet relied on these witnesses' prior statements to corroborate alleged accounts. The panel withheld material evidence from the student and the student was denied a meaningful opportunity to pose questions to witnesses o

The Court of Appeal (First District) recently determined that where there is plainly a power imbalance between the parties, and a worker is required to sign an agreement containing a mandatory arbitration provision, and there is a dispute over whether the worker was/is an employee or an independent contractor, it is both unnecessary and inappropriate to resolve the question of whether the worker was an employee for purposes of an unconscionability determination. The Court of

Vaiula Savea (Savea), an employee of YRC Inc. (YRC), filed a complaint against YRC alleging YRC failed to provide the correct employer name and address on its wage statements as required by Labor Code section 226, subdivision (a)(8). The trial court sustained YRC’s demurrer to the complaint without leave to amend, and Savea appealed. In his appeal, Savea argued that that the wage statements did not comply with Labor Code section 226(a)(8) since they only listed YRC’s fictitio

The California Court of Appeal - Second District - ruled yesterday that when a worker continues her employment after notification that an agreement to arbitration is a condition of continued employment, that employee has impliedly consented to the arbitration agreement. The Court further ruled that an employer can unilaterally change the terms of an at-will worker's employment agreement as long as it provides notice of the change, and the alteration does not violate a statute

The Second District Court of Appeals has ruled that a California choice-of-law clause in an arbitration agreement covering "all disputes" arising from the employment relationship does not remove the parties' agreement to arbitrate wage claims. (See, Bravo v. RADC Enterprises, Inc. - filed March 29, 2019, Second District, Div. Eight - 2019 S.O.S. 1555.) In short, Bravo concerned a choice-of-law clause in an arbitration agreement. The trial court interpreted the clause to mean