The Department of Labor (“DOL”) recently announced its final rule that increases the minimum salary requirements for employees to qualify for exemptions from minimum wage and overtime pay requirements under federal law effective July 1, 2024. This has raised questions and introduces the possibility of confusion for California employers who must navigate both federal and California law to determine and apply the standard that is most employee friendly. Not surprisingly, California law is more employee-friendly in this area because it has a higher salary requirement for the exemptions to apply.

Since 2020, California law (specifically Code of Civil Procedure section 1281.97) has required employers to pay arbitration fees quickly or face harsh consequences. A check getting lost in the mail, or other minor delay exceeding 30 days after the due date has been found to be a “material breach” of the arbitration agreement under 1281.97, allowing the employee-plaintiff to withdraw from arbitration, pursue the case in court and seek sanctions against the employer-drafter.

On May 16, 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Smith v. Spizzirri holding that federal courts have no discretion under Section 3 of the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”) to dismiss a case rather than staying the case once the court determines that the claims are subject to mandatory arbitration under the FAA.

In California, employees are entitled to recover reasonable attorney’s fees if they prevail on claims against employers alleging violations of the Labor Code. In the recent Court of Appeal opinion in Gramajo v. Joe’s Pizza, a California Court of Appeal was faced with the issue of whether to award excessive attorney’s fees to an employee even though the amount of the verdict was nominal. As shown below, the Court of Appeal sent a message across the bow that excessive attorney’s fees may be recoverable irrespective of the amount of damages.

As most car dealers are aware , offers made pursuant to California Civil Procedure Section (“CCP”) 998 can be a useful tool to reign in the cost of settling consumer litigation. Section 998 is a cost-shifting statute designed “to encourage the settlement of litigation without trial, by punishing the party who fails to accept a reasonable settlement offer from its opponent.”

Have you or someone you know had an interest in real property on which there was a cloud on title – perhaps a competing claim of ownership or other rights to the property? Do you know of someone who bought real property only to learn that the property had been subject to a title dispute in the past? This article will explain the remedy of “Quiet Title” to resolve title disputes, and it will explain what happens to any subsequent purchaser’s rights – particularly in those instances when the Quiet Title judgement is reversed or set aside. The interesting case study included at the end of the article, if you chose to read it also, is a cautionary tale for those individuals caught up in quiet title situations.

The California Legislature enacted Civil Code Section 1952.7 to promote the installation of electric vehicle charging stations. Importantly, while commercial lessors are not required to install or maintain EV stations in California, the law prevents them from hindering lessees who wish to do so.

On April 23, 2024, the FTC announced its Final Non-Compete Clause Rule (“Final Rule”), which bans post-employment non-compete clauses between employers and their workers.

Employers widely recognize that the Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”) imposes an affirmative duty on employers to make a reasonable accommodation for the known disability of an employee or applicant unless doing so would impose undue hardship to the employer's operations. California Government Code 12026(m). Determining the nature of the accommodation is a case-by-case process that requires individualized review based on the employee’s limitations and the nature of the employee’s essential duties. This can be a daunting task for employers, and diligent employers, who are accustomed to bearing the administrative and compliance burdens of fulfilling their EEO obligations, may be inclined to take decisive and unilateral action in response to receiving notice of an employee’s need for an accommodation.

The Corporate Transparency Act (“CTA”) has been a point of contention between the United States Federal Government and small businesses, evidenced by the lawsuit brought by the National Small Business Association (“NSBA”) on behalf of its members. While the Northern District of Alabama recently prohibited the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (“FinCEN”) from enforcing the CTA against the NSBA’s members, the court’s order does not appear to apply to non-NSBA members and the US Department of Justice has signaled its intent to appeal the decision. Thus, despite these new developments on the enforcement of the CTA, it is critical that dealers comply with the requirements of the CTA.