California’s controversial independent contractor ABC test and arbitration agreements are the subjects of key decisions from courts this past month. Plus, California has enacted a new rehiring requirement in certain industries for employees who were let go because of COVID-19. Read below for our brief summary of these and other developments for April 2021.

  1. Ninth Circuit deals blow to motor carriers
  2. California Senate Bill 93 requires the rehiring of some employees laid-off due to COVID-19
  3. Ninth Circuit reiterates its “knowing” waiver standard to compel arbitration of statutory discrimination claims, including those under Title VII
  4. California court of appeals denies arbitration of wage-hour claims while clarifying legal standards surrounding arbitration
  5. California court finds Uber’s PAGA waiver unenforceable

That's a wrap. See you next month for another top five developments for California employers.



Recent publications

Restructuring touchpoint blog image

Publication

Intel judgment - more than one way to skin a rebate?!

On 24 October 2024, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) confirmed that the European Commission’s (the EC) 2009 decision, which imposed a (then record) €1.06 billion fine on Intel, was flawed as far as it found that loyalty rebates granted by Intel had anti-competitive effects.

Global | December 19, 2024

Antitrust and competition
Rio

Publication

The 2025 Dutch tax classification of the Brazilian FIP

The Dutch tax classification system for non-Dutch entities will undergo significant changes as of 1 January 2025.

Global | December 19, 2024

Tax
Vessel at a dock loading containers

Publication

Paying the Price: Court of Appeal holds debt still due when non-fulfilment of a condition precedent is caused by the buyer’s own breach

In King Crude Carriers SA & Ors v Ridgebury November LLC & Ors [2024] EWCA Civ 719 the Court of Appeal held that the claimant sellers (the Sellers) were entitled to claim the deposits promised under sale contracts as a debt despite the defendant buyers’ (the Buyers) breach of contract, which had resulted in the non-fulfilment of a condition precedent to the payment of the deposits.

Global | December 18, 2024

Shipping
Site search

Subscribe and stay up to date with the latest legal news, information and events . . .

Register now