Insights
Search Results
News Articles
10.20.23
Wilson Sonsini Attorneys Named to 2024 Lawdragon 500 Corporate Employment Lawyers
On September 22, 2023, Lawdragon released the 2024 edition of its Lawdragon 500 Corporate Employment Lawyers guide honoring more than 300 attorneys who specialize in employment litigation, defending trade secret, discrimination, ERISA, wage and hour, and other claims. Attorneys were selected based on journalistic research, submissions, and vetting.
Alerts
7.19.23
California Supreme Court Rules Employees Can Pursue PAGA Claims on Behalf of Other Aggrieved Employees in Court Despite Arbitration Agreement
On July 17, 2023, the California Supreme Court ruled that where an employee has brought a California Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) action that is comprised of both individual and non-individual claims, a court order compelling arbitration of the employee’s individual claims “does not strip the [employee] of standing as an aggrieved employee to litigate claims on behalf of other employees under PAGA.” The court’s decision in Adolph v. Uber Technologies,1 is bad news for California employers. Just last year the U.S. Supreme Court’s (SCOTUS) decision in Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana,2 (“Viking River”) held essentially the opposite—that where an enforceable arbitration agreement exists, a court could compel an employee to litigate individual claims in arbitration and that, when it did so, the employee could no longer pursue any non-individual (“representative”) claims in court and the court should dismiss any such non-individual claims. As a result, California employers can expect to see an increase in costly PAGA actions with little hope that their arbitration agreement will reduce the risk of such claims.
Alerts
3.06.23
NLRB Attacks Broad Nondisparagement and Confidentiality Provisions in Employee Severance Agreements
In its recent McLaren Macomb decision,1 the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) issued a ruling finding unlawful the type of nondisparagement and confidentiality provisions employers use in severance agreements with their employees. The NLRB also found unlawful the severance agreements that contain such provisions, and declared that merely proposing (or “proffering”) such severance agreements to employees violated federal labor law. In light of the NLRB’s demonstrated antipathy toward such provisions and the agreements that contain them, employers should carefully review their severance agreements—including those used in the context of reductions in force—as well as other employment-related documents that might contain such potentially offensive provisions (including proprietary information agreements). Given the importance of this issue, employers should consult counsel about making any necessary changes.
Alerts
10.05.21
Ninth Circuit’s Ruling on California’s AB 51 Creates Further Uncertainty for California Employers Using Mandatory Employment Arbitration Agreements
A recent federal appellate court ruling has once again introduced uncertainty for California employers as to whether they may require mandatory arbitration of employment disputes. In 2019, California passed Assembly Bill 51 (AB 51), making it unlawful, as a condition of employment, continued employment, or the receipt of any employment-related benefit, to require applicants or employees to waive any “right, forum, or procedure” for a violation of the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) and/or the California Labor Code (Labor Code). Violating the law subjects offending employers to the imposition of civil and criminal sanctions. The law undoubtedly applies to arbitration agreements, in particular those entered into, modified, or extended on or after January 1, 2020. Before AB 51 could take effect, on December 30, 2019, a federal district court issued a temporary restraining order halting enforcement of the law temporarily, and in January 2020, that court issued a preliminary injunction enjoining its enforcement.
Alerts
8.12.21
SEC Approves Nasdaq Listing Rules Regarding Board Diversity
On August 6, 2021, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) approved the proposed rule change submitted by The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC (Nasdaq) to adopt new listing rules establishing a disclosure-based framework relating to board diversity. Under these new listing rules, Nasdaq-listed companies will be required, subject to certain exceptions, to have (or explain why they do not have) the applicable number of diverse directors, and disclose certain board-level diversity statistics on an annual basis.
Alerts
3.15.21
California’s Supreme Court Rejects Employer Use of Time-Rounding Policies in the Meal Period Context
In California, employers with non-exempt employees often utilize time-rounding policies to determine whether employees have been fully paid for time worked, as well as whether employees have taken a meal break in the manner prescribed by law. Notwithstanding, in Donohue v. AMN Services, LLC,1 California's Supreme Court rejected the employer's practice of rounding time punches or timesheets to determine whether it afforded employees the opportunity to take a meal break. The court also held that time records showing noncompliant meal periods create a rebuttable presumption of meal period violations.
Alerts
12.04.20
Nasdaq Proposes Listing Rules Regarding Board Diversity
On December 1, 2020, Nasdaq announced the filing of a proposal with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to adopt new listing rules related to board diversity and disclosures. If adopted, these new listing rules would require Nasdaq-listed companies, subject to certain exceptions, to 1) either have, or explain why they do not have, at least two diverse directors, and 2) disclose certain statistical information regarding diversity among the members of the company's board of directors.
Alerts
11.13.20
Proposition 22 Is a Major Win for California’s Gig Economy
With the passage of Proposition 22 in the November 3, 2020, general election, California's gig economy scored a victory over the state's efforts to classify app-based rideshare and delivery company workers as employees rather than independent contractors. Proposition 22, also known as the "App-Based Drivers as Contractors and Labor Policies Initiative," permits certain app-based rideshare and delivery companies to classify their drivers as independent contractors rather than employees, provided those companies meet certain conditions identified in the new law. The measure, which at present is passing with 58 percent of the vote, adds new Chapter 10.5 to Division 3 of the Business and Professions Code (beginning with Section 7448).
Alerts
10.02.20
California Expands Board Diversity Mandate
On September 30, 2020, California Governor Gavin Newsom signed legislation mandating representation of underrepresented communities on the boards of publicly held corporations based in California. This new law, known as Assembly Bill (AB) 979, provides for substantial penalties for noncompliance.
Alerts
6.17.20
Expanding Federal Job Protections for Employees, U.S. Supreme Court Rules Title VII Prohibits Employment Discrimination on the Basis of Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity
The United States Supreme Court has ruled that an employer who fires an individual merely for being gay or transgender defies Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII).1 As a majority of states do not have laws affording private-sector employees protection against job discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity, the Court's landmark decision in Bostock v. Clayton Cnty., Ga., will have profound consequences for workplaces across the country for years to come.2
Client Highlights
6.15.20
Wilson Sonsini Advises Lexent Bio in Acquisition by Foundation Medicine
On June 12, Foundation Medicine (member of the Roche Group), a Massachusetts-based molecular information company providing genomic profiling services that help personalize cancer care, announced that it had completed the acquisition of Lexent Bio, Inc. Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati advised Lexent Bio in the transaction and has advised Lexent Bio since its formation. The total potential consideration was undisclosed, but included an upfront payment as well as contingent milestone payments.
Alerts
10.25.19
California Law Makes Employers' Use of Mandatory Arbitration Agreements Perilous
California has once again passed pro-employee legislation, this time making it increasingly challenging for California employers to use mandatory arbitration agreements, including one containing a class waiver. Absent limited circumstances, AB 51 (passed earlier this month) prohibits California employers from requiring employees or applicants, as a condition of employment, to waive their right to bring in court claims under California's Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) or Labor Code. While employers will almost certainly challenge the new law in the months ahead, until the dust settles, California employers presently using arbitration agreements, or considering doing so, must make important decisions with respect to their arbitration agreements or policies.