In Laffitte v. Robert Half International, Inc. (2016) 1 Cal.5th 480, the California Supreme Court upheld an award of common fund attorney fees in a class action settlement. The introduction to the opinion gives a good summary of the facts and holding: A class action employment lawsuit settled before trial for $19 million, with the agreement that no more than a third of that recovery would go to class counsel as attorney fees. In seeking the trial court's approval of the settlement, class counsel sought the maximum fee amount, $6,333,333.33. After considering information from class counsel on t ..read more

On September 25, 2016, Governor Brown signed into law Senate Bill 1241, enacting new Labor Code section 925. Effective January 1, 2017, section 925 provides as follows: (a) An employer shall not require an employee who primarily resides and works in California, as a condition of employment, to agree to a provision that would do either of the following:  (1) Require the employee to adjudicate outside of California a claim arising in California.  (2) Deprive the employee of the substantive protection of California law with respect to a controversy arising in California. (b) Any prov ..read more

The California Supreme Court has issued an important decision on the availability of class arbitration: Sandquist v. Lebo Automotive, Inc. (2016) 1 Cal.5th 233.  Timothy Sandquist worked for Lebo Automotive, Inc., as a car salesman. On Sandquist's first day of employment, his manager gave him approximately 100 pages of forms to complete as a condition of his employment. Among those pages were three arbitration agreements. Twelve years later, Sandquist sued Lebo individually and on behalf of others, alleging race discrimination against non-Caucasian workers. The trial court compelled ind ..read more

Jennifer Augustus worked for ABM Security Services as a security guard. ABM required its guards to keep their pagers and radios on and to remain vigilant and responsive as needed during their rest periods. Augustus sued ABM in 2005 for violating California's rest period requirements. The trial court certified a class, granted summary judgment for Augustus, and entered judgment for $90 million. The Court of Appeal reversed, holding that the law does not require employers to provide off-duty rest periods, and moreover, "simply being on call" does not constitute performing work. The Supreme Cour ..read more

If you read my blog regularly (or used to), you've noticed that I haven't written in quite a while. Other than recently advertising my Advanced Mediation Conference, I haven't posted at all since May. Well, that's changing with the new year. My resolution is to get back to the business of keeping my blog up to date with the most recent and most important developments. To that end, I'm starting with a series of posts on the biggest developments of 2016. And I'll throw in newer cases and legislation as we go. As always, I hope you find it useful. Steve ..read more

Even seasoned litigators sometimes feel lost in mediation, with questions such as where to open or how to move forward without giving too much away. And even seasoned litigators sometimes leave mediation feeling frustrated because a client left money on the table, or paid too much, or a case that should have settled did not. With a faculty of leading mediators and attorneys, I've designed a unique, full-day course to address these issues and teach attorneys how to achieve better results in mediation. Instead, using individual and paired exercises, small group discussions, and panel discussion ..read more

In Alvarado v. Dart Container Corporation of California (Cal.App. 1/14/16) (discussed here), the California Court of Appeal held: (1) California law does not provide a method of calculating overtime rates of pay where the employer pays its employees an hourly rate of pay, plus a flat sum daily attendance bonus; (2) the employer here properly followed the formula set forth in the Code of Federal Regulations for paying overtime. The Supreme Court granted review on May 11. Alvarado is case no. S232607, and the Court's web page for it is here.  ..read more

In Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez (SCOTUS 1/21/16) (discussed here), the Supreme Court of the United States held that an unaccepted offer to satisfy the named plaintiff ’s individual claim does not render a putative class action moot. The Court did not decide the following issue:  We need not, and do not, now decide whether the result would be different if a defendant deposits the full amount of the plaintiff’s individual claim in an account payable to the plaintiff, and the court then enters judgment for the plaintiff in that amount. That question is appropriately reserved for a case in whi ..read more

Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton, LLP v. J-M Manufacturing Co., Inc. (2016) 244 Cal.App.4th 590 is not an employment law case, but it raises an interesting arbitration issue that may end up having an impact on employment law practice. The California Supreme Court granted review on April 27, and the issues presented are listed as follows: (1) May a court rely on non-legislative expressions of public policy to overturn an arbitration award on illegality grounds?   (2) Can a sophisticated consumer of legal services, represented by counsel, give its informed consent to an advance waive ..read more

In Espejo v. Southern California Permanente Medical Group (Cal.App. 4/22/16), Jay Espejo, M.D., sued Southern California Permanente Medical Group (SCPMG) and others for wrongful termination and whistleblower retaliation. The trial court denied defendants' motion to compel arbitration based on an electronically signed arbitration agreement. The Court of Appeal reversed, holding as follows:  Defendants were not required to authenticate the arbitration agreement until Espejo challenged it. A party petitioning to compel arbitration must make a prima facie showing that an agreement exist ..read more