Legal Developments
Recent California employment-law developments in Wage & Hour.
The Labor and Workforce Development Agency posted modified text for its proposed PAGA regulations, adding safeguards aimed at high-frequency and non-compliant notice filers, standardized notice forms, and settlement-review procedures. The comment period on the changes closes August 18, 2026.
The Fourth District held that an employer’s arbitration and confidentiality agreements must be read together—and, so read, unfairly forced the employee to arbitrate while letting the employer sue in court.
The Fourth District held that a trial court must consider the mandatory $1,000 discovery sanction under Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.050, which applies even when a self-represented party incurred no expenses.
The Fourth District held that an employer’s statutory right to seek a workplace violence restraining order on behalf of its employees cannot be waived by a separation agreement—and trimmed the order’s speech restriction and duration.
The Third District affirmed that an arbitration agreement reaching all of an employee’s claims—employment-related or not—against the employer and its third parties, without justification or mutuality, was unconscionable and unenforceable.
The Ninth Circuit held that an employment arbitration agreement limited to employment-related disputes was distinguishable from Cook v. USC and not substantively unconscionable, reversing an order denying arbitration.
The Second District held that Cal/OSHA may issue an administrative subpoena to determine whether an app-based driver is an employee or independent contractor—but reversed an order compelling all requested records without limitation.
The First District affirmed sanctions against a plaintiff’s firm for filing an opposition riddled with nonexistent citations and fabricated quotations evidently produced by generative AI—holding the firm forfeited its procedural challenges and that the sanctions were no abuse of discretion.
The Ninth Circuit granted mandamus and held that a district court cannot compel arbitration without first deciding whether the FAA or state law supplies its authority—a question it may not delegate to the arbitrator.
The First District held that the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act does not require a concrete injury for standing in California courts—a statutory violation alone is enough—and reversed an order decertifying a background-check class.