Newsletters

08.27.19

Courts, Not Arbitrators, Decide Gateway Issue of Class Proceedings

Who should decide the gateway issue of whether an arbitration agreement permits class proceedings? Courts, not arbitrators, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has concluded, joining the Fourth, Sixth, Seventh, Eighth, Ninth and Eleventh Circuits.


07.30.19

Midyear Recap of Manatt’s Top Employment Law Stories

Halfway through 2019, it’s time to recap the five biggest employment law stories to date based on the top trafficked links to Manatt’s Employment Law newsletter.  


07.30.19

Plaintiff’s Request for Shoe Reimbursement Slips Out of Court

Interpreting California Labor Code Section 2802, an appellate panel in the state ruled that an employer was not required to reimburse its employees for the cost of slip-resistant shoes.  


07.30.19

Just Pay It: Ninth Circuit Moves Exit Inspection Suit Against Nike Forward

Exit inspections conducted as retail employees of Nike leave the store may need to be compensated, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit determined in a class action, applying the California Supreme Court’s recent decision in Troester v. Starbucks Corp.  


07.30.19

Despite Epic, California Court Denies Motion to Compel Arbitration

In the latest arbitration battle involving Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) claims, a California federal court denied an employer’s motion to compel despite recent U.S. Supreme Court precedent in Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis.  


07.29.19

Liens Against Companies and Executives for Unpaid Employee Wages?

The New York State Legislature has passed a bill that, if signed into law, would allow current and former employees to obtain a lien against an employer’s real or personal property based merely on an allegation of underpayment of wages.


06.27.19

Five Highlights From a Busy Month for the NLRB

The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) has been busy the past few weeks.


06.27.19

Supreme Court: Title VII’s Requirements Not Jurisdictional

In a unanimous decision, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Title VII’s charge-filing precondition to suit is not a jurisdictional requirement and is instead a procedural prescription that is subject to forfeiture, refusing to permit an employer to use the plaintiff’s alleged failure to ...


06.27.19

From Flexible Leave to Marijuana Testing New State Laws on the Books

States have recently enacted new employment-related laws on issues ranging from flexible leave to marijuana testing.


06.27.19

Employer Name Error Doesn’t End Plaintiff’s ADEA Action

An employee’s error with regard to the name of his employer when he filed a charge of discrimination was not fatal to his age discrimination claim, the U.S. Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit held.