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...

The California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, recently affirmed a trial court ruling decertifying a wage-and-hour class action alleging a hospital failed to comply with protections for meal and rest periods for registered nurses. The ruling provided several significant employer-friendly holdings regarding class certification in California wage-and-hour litigation. Quick Hits The California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, affirmed a trial court’s ruling decertifying meal and rest period claims. The appellate court held that an unreliable survey, combined with employee time records showing short/late/missed meal periods, was insufficient proof of classwide liability. The ruling confirms that class member testimony can rebut a presumption of meal period violations created by employee time records. Additionally, the ruling shows that courts can weigh credibility and credit employer declarations in determining whether individual issues predominate. In  Allison v. ...

The California Court of Appeal just handed employers a wage and hour win by ruling that meal period waivers prospectively signed by non-exempt employees are enforceable if certain criteria are met. The April 21 decision in  Bradsbery v. Vicar Operating, Inc.  provides employers with a solid game plan to approach meal period waivers at their workplaces . Below is a quick review of the case and four steps you should consider to take advantage of this positive decision and get the most out of your meal period waivers. How We Got Here and Why It Matters In  Bradsbery v. Vicar Operating ,  two former employees – La Kimba Bradsbery and Cheri Brakensiek – who worked for a network of veterinary hospitals, Vicar Operating, Inc., alleged Vicar violated California wage and hour law. They launched a class action lawsuit against their former employer arguing that the company improperly handled their meal periods. They alleged Vicar r equired them and others to work five-to-six-h...