Drivers file misclassification class action, seek unpaid tips and aggressively attack class action waiver in arbitration agreement
Published on Wed, 08/28/2013 - 2:22pm
Uber is no longer just a German superlative; it is now also a high-end car service. Founded in San Francisco in 2009 as a small start-up, the company has already expanded to twenty-two metropolitan areas across the country, and twenty cities in Canada, the Middle East, Africa, Asia, and Europe.
There was a great article in the Wall Street Journal recently stating that non-compete litigation in this country has risen by over 60% in the last decade as more employees leave their employers to open their own businesses. And that's just court decisions.
On July 17, 2013, as reported in the California Auto Dealer Newsletter, the California Supreme Court denied the petition for review filed by Downtown LA Motors, LP in the case of Gonzalez v. Downtown LA Motors, LP.
Christian J. Scali will be speaking to IADAC members about the state of litigation against auto dealers in California, providing tips and advice on how to avoid being a target of litigation and identifying best practices on how to best position a defense when faced with litigation.
Earlier this year, California’s Supreme Court decided Harris v. City of Santa Monica, in which it raised the bar for plaintiffs seeking to prove that their employer illegally discriminated against them. Plaintiffs must now prove that discrimination was a substantial factor, not just a motivating factor in an employer’s decision to terminate employment.
On Monday, upholding the Federal Arbitration Act’s (FAA) strong deference to arbitral decisions, the United States Supreme Court unanimously held, in Oxford Health Plans, LLC v. Sutter, that where an arbitrator interprets an arbitration agreement to include class arbitration, even if that interpretation is incorrect, it will be upheld.