Roxborough, Pomerance, Nye & Adreani, LLP

RPNA Partner Michael Adreani discusses how PAGA cases affect restaurant owners and how you can protect your business from such claims: ?? Watch on YouTube: https://lnkd.in/gJqj29mW ?? Listen to the podcast: https://lnkd.in/guajuEFS

Wildfire Survivors: Know Your Rights for Additional Living Expense (ALE) Coverage

Emphasizing the Importance of I-9 Verification Amidst Heightened Immigration Enforcement

Check out Drew Pomerance's article, Of Counsel at RPNA, featured in the Consumer Attorneys of California Forum magazine, where he discusses the latest updates in employment law for 2025.

Court Ruling Signals End to “Headless” PAGA Actions Last week, RPNA reported to you on the?Rodriguez v Lawrence Equipment?case, where the Court of Appeal held that an individual who lost on his?individual wage & hour claims in arbitration?did not?have standing to pursue a PAGA claim, since he was?not an “aggrieved employee."?The Court has now given employers a second victory which curbs the power of employee attorneys to bring unlimited, expensive PAGA claims.? ? The case of?Leeper v. Shipt, Inc. was brought by an employee who had signed an arbitration agreement with her?employer. To get around the arbitration requirement, the employee’s attorneys filed a PAGA lawsuit in which the employee alleged that she and others “similarly situated” for violations of the Labor Code, but did not request any penalties for herself. Her?lawyers convinced a lower court that because the employee was merely a representative seeking only penalties for those “similarly situated”, her?PAGA claim could not be arbitrated. ? The Court of Appeal stepped in and compelled the arbitration.?The court found that under the PAGA statute, even if an individual necessarily makes a representative?claim under the PAGA statute, the agreement they?signed required such claims to be arbitrated.?Further, the court issued a stay which prevented the “representative” portion of her?PAGA claim from going forward until the arbitration was completed. ? The last portion of this ruling is especially of interest to employers statewide. The ruling states that employee attorneys will no longer be able to circumvent arbitration agreements by filing clever “representative-only” PAGA lawsuits, which disclaim individual penalties.?Instead, the “representative” will have to arbitrate his or her claims and win; and if, like the Plaintiff in the?Rodriguez v. Lawrence Equipment?case, that “representative” loses his or her individual claim, the remaining parts of the claim are likely to be dismissed as well. ? What Does This Mean for Employers?? The latest Court of Appeal ruling reinforces the importance of providing arbitration agreements to hourly, non-exempt employees. In California, arbitration agreements are essential to curb employers’ potential exposure to PAGA actions. ? For questions about this decision and its potential impact on your business, please contact us: Contact Us Today: Shane Abergel:?[email protected]? Michael B. Adreani:?[email protected] Phone:?? 818-992-9999 Shane M. Abergel is a Senior Attorney who is actively representing employers in PAGA and class action matters. Shane also has extensive experience in business, real estate, and insurance litigation.

LA Fires and What To Do First, RPNA wants to express its sympathy and concern for those who have been evacuated or are less fortunate and have lost their homes or loved ones. Some of us personally have been evacuated, yours truly included, and some other RPNA employees. This is all such a tragedy and, sadly, is unlikely to be a one-off. Times are different. There are a lot of opinions going around, but one thing is certain: The first responders (firefighters, police officers, and so on) have been first-rate and tireless, and as Angelenos, we are immensely grateful for their hard work and dedication. So, here are three great websites to donate to organizations helping to combat the LA fires:? Firefighters https://lnkd.in/dmvkXJ6 Wildfire Recovery Fund https://lnkd.in/gPY-uGU3 Red Cross https://lnkd.in/guV33BD ? No obligations, just a way to say thank you to those who are always there when we need them. And finally, if you need any help, please let us know. RPNA always wants to support its clients, friends, and colleagues. ? Stay safe, Nicholas P. Roxborough and the RPNA Team

RPNA is thrilled to announce as of January 2025, the elevation of one of its Senior Attorneys, Muhammed Hussain, to Partner! ? Since joining RPNA, Muhammed has excelled primarily in employment and business litigation, representing employers in federal and state courts across complex class actions and individual employee claims. Muhammed recently second chaired a jury trial with Drew Pomerance in Northern California, resulting in a highly favorable outcome for our client. His expertise also spans advising clients on employment and business transactions, delivering innovative solutions for workplace policies, practices, and challenges. Additionally, Muhammed has made valuable contributions to the firm’s work in lender liability and real estate litigation, further showcasing his diverse skill set. “We are thoroughly honored to make Muhammed part of the RPNA team," said Nicholas Roxborough, RPNA’s managing partner. “We have been proud to see him grow as a deeply committed attorney, to his and RPNA’s clients and we believe his promotion presents new opportunities for both our clients and RPNA.” ? Outside of work, Muhammed is co-owner of a very successful Italian restaurant in Pasadena. He enjoys unwinding with classic mystery novels, delving into history, and savoring a good cigar. ? Please join us in congratulating Muhammed on his well-deserved promotion! Feel free to reach out to him for any legal inquiries or simply to send your congratulations at [email protected] ? Here's to Muhammed's continued success with RPNA!???

Catch Roxborough, Pomerance, Nye & Adreani, LLP, Partner Michael Adreani on the Self Insurance Podcast, presented by California Restaurant Mutual Benefit Corp (CRMBC), as he unpacks PAGA's original intent, its challenges today, and offers expert strategies for businesses to navigate its complexities. #PAGA #CaliforniaLaborLaw #WorkerRightsCA #EmploymentLawCA #CAlaborCompliance #PAGAClaims #CALegalUpdate #CAEmploymentLaw

?? California Supreme Court Decision: Pay for Pre and Post Shift Activities ?? The California Supreme Court recently issued its decision in Huerta v. CSI Electrical Contractors, with critical implications for employers statewide. This ruling clarifies the landscape on what activities constitute compensable work time, specifically concerning pre-shift activities and meal periods. Here's what you need to know: Key Takeaways: 1. Security Procedures May be Considered Compensable: ? Vehicle Inspections: Time spent by employees in their personal vehicles, waiting, and undergoing employer-mandated security inspections may be compensable depending on the level of control exercised by the employer during the process. This parallels the Court's earlier stance in Frlekin v. Apple Inc., finding post-shift security checks of an employee’s personal belongings to be compensable time due to the amount of control exercised by the employer during the checks. ? 2. Travel Time on Employer Property: ? General Rule: Driving on employer premises isn't deemed compensable under the "control" test merely due to ordinary workplace rules. Employer-Mandated Travel (Wage Order No. 16): For industries under Wage Order 16, travel time that's required for an employment reason beyond accessing the worksite could be compensable. The key factor is whether the employee's presence is required at a specific location for work-related reasons before heading to their actual jobsite. ? 3. Meal Periods on Employer's Premises: ? Even under a collective bargaining agreement exempting an employer from standard meal period requirements, meal periods are compensable if the employer restricts employees from leaving the premises, affecting their ability to engage in personal activities. ? Implications and Action Items: ? Review Security and Safety Processes: Given the decision, it's time to reevaluate your security and vehicle inspection procedures to ensure they're not inadvertently creating compensable time. ? Assess On-Premises Travel Policies: Clarify travel time policies, especially for businesses covered by Wage Order No. 16, to distinguish between non-compensable commute time and compensable employer-mandated travel. ? Reconsider Meal Period Restrictions: Ensure that any restrictions during meal breaks do not limit employees' ability to use this time freely, in line with the Court's guidance. ???????????????? How We Can Help?? Navigating these changes requires a proactive approach. Our team is on hand to help you review and adjust your policies to ensure compliance with these significant legal developments. ? For personalized assistance or further information, please contact me or: ? Nicholas P. Roxborough: [email protected] Michael Adreani: [email protected] Trevor R. Witt: [email protected] Muhammed T. Hussain: [email protected] Or reach out at ?? 818-992-9999 ? Stay ahead of regulatory shifts with our expert guidance.