Compliance Stuff

On April 1, 2026, the Ninth Circuit in O’Dell v. Aya Healthcare Services, Inc. , 171 F.4th 1173 (9th Cir. 2026) held that the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”) protects employers from plaintiffs’ attempts to use inconsistent decisions about the enforceability of an arbitration agreement to invalidate all arbitration agreements in a class action . The court explained that extending a small number of arbitration rulings to bar arbitration for other employees would undermine the individualized nature of arbitration and conflict with the FAA’s strong policy favoring enforcement of arbitration agreements as written . This decision is a win for California employers. It generally reinforces the enforceability of arbitration agreements in a class action context and prevents isolated arbitration enforcement losses from automatically voiding the agreements for the rest of the putative class. Key Facts Former employees of a travel nursing agency filed a putative class action (not yet able certifie...

In a significant decision, the Delaware Supreme Court reversed the dismissal of Payscale, Inc.’s breach of contract claims arising from Erin Norman’s alleged violations of the noncompete, non-solicitation, and confidentiality provisions contained in the incentive equity agreement that she signed as an employee. The decision reaffirms: (1) nationwide, 18-month noncompetes may be enforceable when they are sufficiently tied to an employer’s articulated economic interests, (2) contingent equity awards are legally sufficient consideration for restrictive covenants , and (3) a plaintiff may plead circumstantial allegations to support claims for breach of non-solicitation and confidentiality provisions. Background Norman entered into an incentive equity agreement that included noncompete, non-solicitation, and confidentiality provisions. In exchange, she received “Profit Interest Units” (PIUs) in Payscale’s parent holding company. At the time, the PIUs were valued at $0, but the PIUs would v...

The Supreme Court of the United States recently denied certiorari in  Bivens v. Zep, Inc. , leaving in place a stark circuit split on the standard for employer liability when customers or other third parties harass employees. 00:00 24:53 Quick Hits The Supreme Court left intact the Sixth Circuit’s intent-based standard for employer liability for third-party harassment. The Sixth Circuit’s ruling diverges sharply from the EEOC’s position, as well as that of almost all other circuits to address the issue. Employers in Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, and Tennessee continue to benefit from the higher bar for employer liability set by the Sixth Circuit, while employers in most other jurisdictions remain subject to a more employee-friendly standard. Background In  Bivens v. Zep Inc . , the Sixth Circuit held that an employer can be liable for customer harassment only if it intended for the harassment to occur or was willfully indifferent to it. In its decision, the Sixth Circuit rejected ...

A  recent Illinois federal court decision  shows that when AI listens in on calls, legal questions follow. The putative class action case is  Megan Lisota v. Heartland Dental, LLC, et al . It was brought against two entities: Heartland Dental, LLC and its partner, RingCentral, Inc. Heartland Dental provides administrative and overflow call center services to dental clinics. In providing its services, it contracts with RingCentral. RingCentral is a provider of cloud-based, AI-supported telephone services. According to plaintiff’s complaint, RingCentral's AI software is designed to capture and transcribe real time call details from patient, payer, and provider calls. Heartland used these details, the plaintiffs alleged, to identify and triage callers. It also used them to identify missed opportunities to schedule dental appointments. The plaintiff, a patient, alleged these activities constituted eavesdropping in violation of the Federal Wiretap Act . The court ruled the pl...

  E mployer-sponsored networking events and leadership programs are often created to support professional development and employee engagement . But when access to those opportunities is limited based on a protected characteristic, the program itself can become the basis for a Title VII claim. That issue is at the center of the EEOC’s recent lawsuit against Coca-Cola Beverages Northeast, Inc. In its complaint filed February 17, 2026, t he agency alleges the company violated Title VII by excluding male employees from an employer-sponsored trip and networking event and by providing female attendees with workplace and economic benefits not offered to male employees . [1] According to the complaint, Coca-Cola Northeast held the event at Mohegan Sun and Casino in Connecticut on September 10 and 11, 2024. [2]  The EEOC alleges the company privately invited female employees, did not invite male employees, and gave attendees several associated benefits. Those alleged benefits included...

California employers often focus on whether an employee’s complaint has legal merit. That instinct makes sense. If the complaint is wrong, exaggerated, or based on a misunderstanding of the law, it is easy to assume the risk is low. That assumption is where employers get into trouble. A recent California Court of Appeal decision makes the point. In  Contreras v. Green Thumb Produce, Inc. , the court confirmed that an employee can pursue a retaliation claim even when the underlying complaint is legally incorrect, so long as the employee reasonably believed a violation of law occurred. That is the disconnect employers often miss. The Shift Employers Need to Understand Under California law, an employee engages in protected activity when they complain about conduct they reasonably believe violates the law . That belief does not have to be correct. It only needs to be “reasonable.” An employee may complain about something that is not actually unlawful. They may misunderstand wage and h...