In a recent decision, the Fifth Circuit left open the possibility that federal courts may be prevented from exercising jurisdiction over a non-resident defendant, in a Rule 23 class action, with respect to non-resident class members.
In Ramirez v. Trans Union, the Ninth Circuit addressed whether, at the class certification stage of a putative class case, only the named plaintiff or all class members must have Article III standing (i.e., a concrete injury in fact) to certify a class.
The Seventh Circuit recently became the second federal appellate court to address whether notice of an FLSA collective action may be sent to individuals who allegedly entered into mutual arbitration agreements waiving their right to join the action.
The District of Minnesota recently joined several other federal courts around the country in holding that only workers with a connection to the forum state may join a collective action under the FLSA.
Since October 24, 2019, blind and vision-impaired individuals have filed more than 90 lawsuits claiming that Title III of the ADA and its state and local equivalents require retailers and restaurants that offer gift cards to offer those cards in Braille.
The California Supreme Court recently held that unpaid wages are not civil penalties under California Labor Code section 558 and are therefore outside the reach of California’s Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA).
On August 20, 2019, a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit issued an opinion permitting arbitration of a breach of fiduciary duty claim filed under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act.
This article provides a brief overview of the significant employment cases decided this Supreme Court term and provides a preview of the issues on the Court’s 2019-2020 docket.
A federal court’s recent decision demonstrates the value in reviewing all documents related to the independent contractor background screening process to attempt to solidify potential defenses to expansive class-action claims.
On April 24, 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court held that even if an arbitration agreement is ambiguous as to whether classwide arbitration is permitted, that is insufficient to find that the parties consented to class arbitration.
