©2023 Seyfarth Shaw LLP www.seyfarth.com 2023 Cal-Peculiarities | 17 Attorneys General Act will be manageable at trial, and to strike or narrow such claims if they cannot be managed?” (Fully briefed September 26, 2022.) (See § 5.15.2.) What time spent on an employer’s premises is compensable as “hours worked?” In Huerta v. CSI Electrical Contractors, Inc., 39 F.4th 1176 (9th Cir. July 8, 2022), certification granted No. S275431 (Cal. Aug. 31, 2022), the Supreme Court agreed to answer the following questions: “(1) Is time spent on an employer’s premises in a personal vehicle and waiting to scan an identification badge, have security guards peer into the vehicle, and then exit a Security Gate compensable as ‘hours worked’ within the meaning of California Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Order No. 16? (2) Is time spent on the employer’s premises in a personal vehicle, driving between the Security Gate and the employee parking lots, while subject to certain rules from the employer, compensable as ‘hours worked’ or as ‘employermandated travel’ within the meaning of California Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Order No. 16? (3) Is time spent on the employer’s premises, when workers are prohibited from leaving but not required to engage in employer-mandated activities, compensable as ‘hours worked’ within the meaning of California Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Order No. 16, or under California Labor Code Section 1194, when that time was designated as an unpaid ‘meal period’ under a qualifying collective bargaining agreement?” (Fully briefed October 26, 2022.) (See § 7.3.2.) When may an employer invoke a good faith defense to avoid liquidated damages for alleged minimum wage violations, and is there a private right of action to enforce administrative penalties under the Healthy Workplaces, Healthy Families Act? In Iloff v. LaPaille, 80 Cal. App. 5th 427 (2022), review granted No. S275848 (Cal. Oct. 26, 2022), the Supreme Court agreed to decide: “(1) Must an employer demonstrate that it affirmatively took steps to ascertain whether its pay practices comply with the Labor Code and Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Orders to establish a good faith defense to liquidated damages under Labor Code section 1194.2, subdivision (b)? (2) May a wage claimant prosecute a paid sick leave claim under section 248.5, subdivision (b) of the Healthy Workplaces, Healthy Families Act of 2014 (Lab. Code, § 245 et seq.) in a de novo wage claim trial conducted pursuant to Labor Code section 98.2?” (Fully briefed May 4, 2023) (See § 7.20.) What is the proper test for determining whether an employer has waived the right to compel arbitration? In Quach v. California Commerce Club, Inc., 78 Cal. App. 5th 470 (2022), review granted No. S275121 (Cal. Aug. 24, 2022), the Supreme Court agreed to decide: “Does California’s test for determining whether a party has waived its right to compel arbitration by engaging in litigation remain valid after the United States Supreme Court decision in Morgan v. Sundance, Inc. (2022) ___ U.S. ___ [142 S.Ct. 1708]?” (Fully briefed December 27, 2022.) (See § 5.2.) Does FEHA permit a business entity acting as an employer’s agent to be held liable for employment discrimination? In Raines v. U.S. Healthworks Medical Group, review granted, No. S273630 (Cal. March 16, 2022), the Supreme Court agreed to decide an issue referred to it by the Ninth Circuit: “Does California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act, which defines ‘employer’ to include ‘any person acting as an agent of an employer’ (Gov. Code, § 12926, subd. (d)), permit a business entity acting as an agent of an employer to be held directly liable for employment discrimination?” (Argued and submitted May 25, 2023.) (See § 6.1.) Is an employment arbitration agreement substantively unconscionable due to inclusion of provision for award of attorney’s fees relating to compelling arbitration? In Ramirez v. Charter Communications, Inc., 75 Cal. App. 5th 365 (2022), review granted No. S273802 (Cal. June 1, 2022), the Supreme Court agreed to decide: “Did the Court of Appeal err in holding that a provision of an arbitration agreement allowing for recovery of interim attorney’s fees after a successful motion to compel arbitration,
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTkwMTQ4