This blog has previously reported on the anti-poaching cases involving various tech companies in Silicon Valley.  The cases arise out of alleged agreements between various tech companies not to recruit each other’s employees.  The U.S. Department of Justice brought antitrust actions as a result of these alleged agreements which resulted in the companies entering into settlements with the government.  In addition to the government’s actions, a class action was filed on behalf of tech employees claiming these “anti-poaching” agreements harmed their earning ability and mobility.

Last year, various tech companies entered into a settlement of these claims for approximately $325 million.  That settlement was rejected by U.S. District Court Judge Lucy H. Koh as not being “within the range of reasonableness.”  Earlier this week, the parties to this class action announced that they had entered into a new settlement with Apple, Google, Intel and Adobe proposing to pay $415 million to settle the class action.  The settlement will be submitted to Judge Koh for approval.  If the settlement is not approved, the case is currently set to go to trial this spring.

More details concerning the proposed settlement can be found at the following New York Times Article, “Bigger Settlement Said to Be Reached in Silicon Valley Antitrust Case,” dated January 14, 2015.

Brenden Begley_retouchMany employers have arbitration agreements wherein employees agree to waive the right to file a lawsuit against the employer under various laws, including the California’s Private Attorney General Act (“PAGA”).  Employers were disappointed when the California Supreme Court ruled last June that such waivers of PAGA lawsuits are invalid, at least in state court.  See Iskanian v. CLS Transportation Los Angeles, LLC, 59 Cal.4th 348 (2014).

However, a number of federal trial judges in the Golden State subsequently disagreed and ruled that PAGA waivers are enforceable in their courts.  See, e.g., Ortiz v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., E.D. Cal. Case No. 2:13-cv-01619 (Sept. 30, 2014).  Because a PAGA waiver still may be enforceable against an employee in federal court, many employers have either kept or inserted such waivers in their arbitration agreements.

This week it became apparent that including a PAGA waiver may destroy an employer’s ability to require arbitration in any type of lawsuit, be it under PAGA or some other theory (e.g., alleged discrimination, harassment, retaliation, or wage-and-hour or meal-and-rest-period violations).  Specifically, the California Court of Appeal ruled that a PAGA waiver will invalidate an entire arbitration agreement in state court if that agreement also includes a non-severability clause.  See Montano v. The Wet Seal Retail, Inc., Cal. Ct. App. Case No. B244107 (Jan. 7, 2015). Continue Reading The New PAGA-Waiver Trap Door

LaborEmpSeminarLogo2014  – A Year in Review

2015 – An Interesting Year Ahead

Summary of Program

Join the attorneys from Weintraub Tobin’s Labor and Employment Group as they discuss important legal developments from 2014 and review the complexities of a number of new laws facing employers in 2015.

Sacramento Date:    January 8, 2015

Time:   9:00 a.m. – 12:00 p.m.

Location:  400 Capitol Mall, 11th Floor, Sacramento, CA

San Francisco Date:  January 15, 2015

Time:   9:00 a.m. – 12:00 p.m.

Location:  The Bar Association of San Francisco, 301 Battery Street, San Francisco, CA

Orange County Date: January 22, 2015

Time:   9:00 a.m. – 12:00 p.m.

Location:  Irvine Company Office Properties, 610 Newport Center Drive, Newport Beach, CA

To register for one of these seminars, please RSVP to Ramona Carrillo at rcarrillo@weintraub.com.

Brenden Begley_retouchJust in time for the holidays, the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”) and the U.S. Department of Labor (“DOL”) have delivered additional workplace protections for workers and prospective unions this month.  Whether those government agencies are viewed as Santa or the Grinch coming down workplace chimneys depends upon one’s perspective.

Specifically, the NLRB gave a sugary treat to unions and employees who want union representation by ruling in early December that, under most circumstances, workers must be permitted to use their employers’ email systems for purposes of union-organizing activities.  Then, in mid-December, the NLRB stuffed the stockings of unions and employees who desire union representation by issuing a final rule shortening the time to hold an election to determine whether a majority of workers want to be unionized.

Many employers worry that this speedy-election change, which becomes effective on April 14, 2015, will diminish management’s ability to stage an anti-union campaign prior to voting.  As such, employers who are concerned about unionization likely will focus on year-round anti-union avoidance programs, instead of anti-union campaigns that commence only upon the filing of a representation petition. Continue Reading U.S. Government Agencies: Santa or Grinch?

BethWestBlogThe United States Supreme Court issued its decision in Integrity Staffing Solutions, Ins. v. Busk on December 9, 2014 and reversed the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal in a much awaited wage and hour decision concerning the issue of “compensable time” under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”).

The facts of the case are very straight forward.  Integrity Staffing Solutions, Inc. (“Integrity”) required its hourly non-exempt ware­house workers (who retrieved products from warehouse shelves and packaged them for delivery to Amazon.com customers), to undergo a security screening before leaving the warehouse each day.  A number of former employees sued Integrity alleging, in part, that they were entitled to compensation under the FLSA for the roughly 25 minutes each day that they spent waiting to undergo and undergoing those screenings. The employees also alleged that the company could have reduced that time to a de minimis amount by adding screeners or staggering shift terminations and that the screenings were conducted to prevent employee theft and, thus, for the sole benefit of the company and its customers. Continue Reading VICTORY FOR EMPLOYERS…. The U.S. Supreme Court Holds that Employees are Not Entitled to Compensation for Time Spent Going through Employer’s Security Screening