Hunton Retail Law Resource

On April 1, 2024, California’s Assembly Bill No.1228 (“AB 1228”) took effect, making the state’s fast food workers the highest paid in the United States. However, uncertainty regarding precisely who is covered under the new law has left some employers reeling, as the stakes for complying with California’s Labor Code remain as high as ever.

Since the United States Supreme Court issued its decision in Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana in June 2022, trial courts in California have grappled with how to address the non-individual portion of a plaintiff’s PAGA claim that remains in court when a plaintiff’s individual PAGA claim is compelled to arbitration.[1]  Most trial courts have found it appropriate to stay the non-individual portion of the PAGA claim until the arbitration’s conclusion because that outcome would determine whether the employee retains standing to proceed in court.  On July 17, 2023, in the highly anticipated decision of Adolph v. Uber Technologies, the California Supreme Court addressed several questions in the post-Viking River landscape, including the propriety of staying non-individual PAGA claims pending the completion of arbitration. 

In an August 2022 decision, the California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, held that retail websites without any connection to a physical space, such as a brick-and-mortar store, do not constitute “places of public accommodation” and, thus, are not within the purview of Title III of the American with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) or the Unruh Civil Rights Act (the “Unruh Act”). 

On September 15, 2021, a divided Ninth Circuit panel in Chamber of Commerce v. Bonta, Case No. 20-15291, upheld Assembly Bill 51 (“AB 51”), a bill that would prohibit employers from requiring employees to execute arbitration agreements as a condition of their employment.  The Ninth Circuit’s ruling reversed in part the District Court’s ruling that AB 51 is preempted by the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”).

On Friday, December 6, 2019, a business coalition led by the US Chamber of Commerce filed suit challenging a new California law that forbids employers from offering and entering into certain arbitration agreements with their workers. Signed into law by California Governor Gavin Newsom on October 10, 2019, Assembly Bill 51 (AB 51) will impose criminal liability on employers who require applicants or employees, “as a condition of reemployment, continued employment, or the receipt of any employment-related benefit,” to “waive any right, forum, or procedure for a violation of any provision of the California Fair Employment and Housing Act” and other related employment statutes. Additionally, AB 51 will impose criminal liability on employers who retaliate against applicants or employees who refuse to enter into banned mandatory arbitration agreements.

On October 28, 2019, the US Chamber of Commerce, along with two other business-oriented groups—the National Retail Federation and the Retail Litigation Center, Inc.—filed an amicus brief urging the Ninth Circuit to overrule a $102 million judgment against Wal-Mart.