Labor & Employment Law Blog

On April 21, 2025, the California Court of Appeal issued a new, published opinion in Bradsbery v. Vicar Operating, Inc. in which the court concluded that revocable, prospective, “blanket” meal period waivers are enforceable in the absence of any evidence that the waivers are unconscionable or unduly coercive to the employee.

On April 8, 2025, the Third Appellate District Court of Appeal published a decision denying an employer’s motion to compel arbitration.  The question before the Court of Appeal was whether the parties’ arbitration agreement required arbitration of the employee’s Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) claims.  The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s ruling that the agreement contained a PAGA carveout such that the employer could not compel the employee’s individual PAGA claims to arbitration.

The courts in Los Angeles are creating controversy over attorneys’ fees awards—a tale in three parts.

In Pollock v. Kelso, 107 Cal. App. 5^th 1190 (2025), Pollock sued for sexual harassment and racial discrimination. The trial court granted summary judgment, and the court of appeal affirmed. The California Supreme court reversed, and on remand, the Court of Appeal awarded appellate costs to Pollock.  Pollock moved for $526,475.63 in attorneys’ fees, and the court awarded $493,577.10.  Defendant appealed.  The summary judgment motion was reversed, and a trial was set.  The parties settled the case except for the appeal on the attorneys’ fees, and filed a stipulation with the court stating, “The court DISMISSES this entire action with prejudice as to all parties and all causes of action.”

I. Summary

On December 30, 2024, and just before the New Year struck, the California Court of Appeal issued a favorable employer decision on the enforceability of arbitration agreements in Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) cases. In Leeper v. Shipt, Inc., (2024 WL 5251619), the Second District Court of Appeal, Division One, in Los Angeles, held that because every PAGA action necessarily includes an “individual PAGA claim,” PAGA plaintiffs cannot attempt to avoid arbitration by characterizing their lawsuit as a purely representative PAGA claim made on behalf of only other allegedly aggrieved employees, but not the named representative themself. In other words, the court would not allow a “headless” PAGA action to proceed. Accordingly, the court directed the trial court to order the plaintiff, Christina Leeper’s individual PAGA claim to arbitration and stay the representative action in accordance with California Code of Civil Procedure section 1281.4.  This guidance should help end recent attempts by many plaintiffs attempting to circumvent arbitration by “disclaiming” their own individual claims in order to represent only others.

1. Summary of the Ruling

In Gonzalez v. Nowhere Beverly Hills LLC, 2024 WL 4948533 (Dec. 3, 2024), the California Court of Appeal for the Second District held that plaintiff-employees cannot simultaneously allege their employers’ corporate subsidiaries and parent companies acted as “joint employers,” while also attempting to avoid arbitration with these related entities by arguing they were not parties to the employment contract and arbitration agreement.

In the recently decided Howell v. State Department of State Hospitals, 2024 WL 4997719 (December 5, 2024), the trial court and court of appeal upheld a Scrooge-like verdict by a jury that resulted in Ms. Howell’s receiving NO emotional distress damages and limited attorneys’ fees even though the jury found she had been discriminated against based on a mental disability.  A closer examination of why Ms. Howell found a lump of coal in her holiday stocking is merited.

On April 17, 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision which will make it easier for employees to establish discrimination under Title VII of the U.S Civil Rights Act of 1964. In the case of Muldrow v. City of St. Louis (USSC Case No. 22-193), the Court held that an employee need only show that an employment action brought about "some harm to an identifiable term or condition of employment," as opposed to "materially significant disadvantage” in those terms or conditions. The Court expressly acknowledged that this is a less burdensome standard than those which had been adopted by federal appellate courts in the past, and that "many cases will come out differently" under this new standard. 

Given the current state of the economy, many employers are considering reductions in work hours and potential layoffs.  As businesses consider taking action to save money and prevent potential closure, they must do so carefully in order to manage and reduce risk of future litigation related to its actions.  This blog discusses the appropriate steps that a business must take when conducting a reduction in force (“RIF”).

Recent mass layoffs by tech companies, such as Twitter and Meta, have made headlines.  The massive layoff by Twitter on November 4, 2022 has already resulted in a lawsuit filed by former Twitter employees for violations of the federal Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification (“WARN”) Act.  The WARN Act requires certain employers to provide 60-day advance notice in cases of qualified plant closings and mass layoffs, allowing employees and their families with transition time to seek alternate employment or skills training.