Employers have long relied on arbitration agreements to resolve workplace disputes efficiently and cost-effectively. Arbitration offers privacy, faster resolution, and reduced legal costs compared to traditional litigation. But a recent decision by the California Court of Appeal highlights an important limit: employers can no longer compel arbitration in sexual harassment cases—even when a valid arbitration clause exists and the contract selects California law.

A new bill introduced in the California State Assembly—AB 1251—seeks to curb the growing trend of “ghost” job postings, where employers advertise positions that are not currently open or intended to be filled. If enacted, the bill would require employers to clearly disclose in job advertisements whether a listed position represents an actual, current vacancy. Failure to make this disclosure could constitute a violation of California’s unfair competition law, subject to enforcement by the California Privacy Protection Agency (“CPPA”), including administrative fines and cease-and-desist orders.

On March 21, 2025, the California Supreme Court issued a significant decision in Madrigal v. Hyundai Motor America, holding that a plaintiff who rejects or allows a Code of Civil Procedure Section 998 offer to lapse may still face cost-shifting consequences—even if the case settles before trial. This ruling resolves long-standing uncertainty about whether Section 998 penalties apply only when a case proceeds to judgment after trial, and it marks a reaffirmation of the statute’s purpose to promote early settlement.

The employment landscape is an ever changing one. No where is that more true than in the areas of computing and artificial intelligence, and their continuing impact on employers and employees alike. The proposed “No Robo Bosses” Act (Senate Bill 7) seeks to regulate the use of AI systems when hiring, promoting, disciplining, and terminating workers. A recent 41-page AI policy report commissioned by California Governor Gavin Newsom could soon lead to AI regulation that could impact AI-based decision-making, hiring processes, and workplace surveillance. The report’s recommendations have already been incorporated into a proposed bill, SB53 that could introduce new

In California, the question of whether commission-based employees are entitled to overtime pay is one of the more complex areas of labor law. While the general rule under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and California labor law mandates that non-exempt employees are entitled to overtime compensation for hours worked beyond 40 in a workweek, 8 in a workday, or more than 6 consecutive workdays in a workweek, commission-based employees are subject to specific requirements that could impact their eligibility for overtime pay. Under California law, most employees are entitled to overtime pay unless they fall within one of the

In early 2020, thousands of Uber and Lyft drivers, supported by the advocacy group Rideshare Drivers United, filed claims against the companies, alleging misclassification as independent contractors and demanding over $1.3 billion in wages, expenses, and damages. The California attorney general, labor commissioner, and city attorneys of Los Angeles, San Diego, and San Francisco joined in a coordinated lawsuit, seeking to enforce state labor laws and hold the companies accountable. Drivers who worked between 2016 and 2020 could be eligible for a potential settlement, as negotiations are now underway, with mediation sessions scheduled with Uber and Lyft in the coming

Recent California appellate decisions, Rodriguez v. Packers Sanitation Services LTD., LLC and Moniz v. Adecco USA, Inc., underscore the critical role of strategic procedural motions in PAGA defense. Rodriguez addressed "headless" PAGA actions, where plaintiffs disclaim individual claims to avoid arbitration. The court ruled arbitration of unasserted claims is impermissible, despite their inherent presence in PAGA actions, creating a conflict with Leeper v. Shipt. Crucially, a plaintiff’s disavowal of individual relief binds them, potentially enabling dismissal for lack of standing. Employers must be vigilant in navigating these procedural complexities, understanding that the courts are closely examining the form and substance

It is early in the 2025 legislative session, but California lawmakers have already introduced a series of proposed bills that could significantly impact the state's employers. Although it is too early to predict which, if any, of these bills will pass, the potential changes could greatly affect businesses and workers across California. Employers desiring further guidance in navigating the increasingly complicated landscape of compliance with employment law in California should contact MNK Law, APC, at 562.362.6437, or info@mnklawyers.com.

The recent Ninth Circuit decision in Chabolla v. ClassPass, Inc. highlights the challenges of enforcing arbitration agreements in online Terms of Use. Katherine Chabolla sued ClassPass, alleging violations of California’s Automatic Renewal Law, Unfair Competition Law, and Consumers Legal Remedies Act after her subscription auto-renewed following a pandemic-related pause. ClassPass argued that Chabolla had agreed to arbitration through a “sign-in wrap” agreement, which linked the Terms of Use without requiring explicit user consent. Unlike traditional “clickwrap” agreements that demand clear acknowledgment, sign-in wrap agreements rely on user actions like signing up as implicit consent.

The State of California Civil Rights Department (“CA CRD”) is currently conducting its fifth annual pay data filing, with a due date of May 14, 2025. This requirement, established in 2021, emerged after the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) stopped collecting pay data as part of the EEO-1 report. To bridge this gap, California passed Senate Bill 973 in 2020, mandating private employers with at least 100 employees nationwide and at least one employee in California to submit annual pay data reports, which include W-2 wages