In Dobarro v. Kim (2025) 116 Cal.App.5th 158, the Court of Appeal held that the tolling provisions for electronic filing failures (Code Civ. Proc. § 1010.6) do not apply to the strict jurisdictional deadline for appealing a Labor Commissioner award (Labor Code § 98.2). Affirming the dismissal of an appeal filed one day late after a clerk rejected a timely attempted e-filing, the court relied on Pressler v. Donald L. Bren Co. (1982) 32 Cal.3d 831 to maintain that the deadline is mandatory and cannot be extended for mistake or neglect.

This decision reinforces the unforgiving nature of § 98.2 appeals, warning counsel that technical glitches or clerk rejections offer no relief from this specific jurisdictional bar.

In Mora v. C.E. Enterprises (2025) 116 Cal.App.5th 72, the Court of Appeal held that a pay plan providing a high base hourly wage (double the minimum) plus a "flag bonus" did not violate the "no borrowing" rule from Gonzalez v. Downtown LA Motors, LP, nor Labor Code § 226.2. Affirming a judgment for the employer, the court distinguished this "base plus bonus" model from unlawful piece-rate averaging, reasoning that because employees were paid well above minimum wage for every hour worked (productive or not), the bonus was a true incentive and not used to cover unpaid time.

This decision validates "flag bonus" structures for automotive technicians and other trades, provided the base hourly rate independently satisfies minimum wage obligations for all hours on the clock, and serves as a reminder that plaintiffs cannot rely on "manifestly deficient" records to overturn PAGA verdicts.

In Anton's Services v. Hagen (2025) 116 Cal.App.5th 90, the Court of Appeal held that funds withheld by an awarding body (Lab. Code § 1727(b)) do not constitute the "payment of wages" necessary to avoid liquidated damages under § 1742.1. Affirming penalties against a public works contractor, the court ruled that because withheld funds are not actually received by workers until final review, they cannot be used to demonstrate that unpaid wages were "promptly and voluntarily corrected." Additionally, the court affirmed that overtime and weekend shifts must be included when calculating compliance with required apprentice-to-journeyman ratios under § 1777.5.

This decision prevents contractors from using agency withholdings as a shield against liquidated damages and enforces stricter compliance with apprenticeship staffing ratios across all working hours.

In Villalobos v. Maersk, Inc. (2025) 114 Cal.App.5th 1170, the Court of Appeal held that generally incorporating AAA rules by reference does not meet the "clear and unmistakable" standard to delegate arbitrability if the employee would need a three-step process to find the actual delegation clause. The court also affirmed that when the California Arbitration Act (CAA) governs (not the FAA), Labor Code § 229 bars arbitration of waiting time penalty claims (Lab. Code § 203), and Viking River's preemption does not apply, rendering the entire PAGA claim non-arbitrable.

This decision reinforces that vague incorporation is insufficient notice for delegation and confirms that § 229 remains a powerful tool to keep wage and PAGA claims in court when the CAA applies.

In Levy v. City and County of San Francisco (2025) 114 Cal.App.5th 997, the Court of Appeal held that Labor Code § 512.1's meal and rest break protections for public healthcare workers do not apply to charter cities. Affirming a demurrer, the court ruled that the statute's text (e.g., "counties," "municipalities") does not explicitly include charter cities, and the Legislature's failure to do so (unlike in other statutes like § 1182.14 or § 555) shows no intent to override the "home rule" doctrine.

This decision solidifies the autonomy of charter cities over their labor relations, confirming they are not bound by § 512.1 and that their MOUs control healthcare worker break policies.

In Iloff v. LaPaille (2025) 18 Cal. 5th 551, the California Supreme Court unanimously held that an employer's mere ignorance of the law is not a "good faith" defense to liquidated damages for minimum wage violations. Modeling the defense on its FLSA counterpart, the Court ruled the employer must show they made an "attempt to determine what the law required" (e.g., investigating compliance). The Court also held that a de novo Berman appeal (Lab. Code § 98.2) allows trial courts discretion to hear new claims not raised before the Labor Commissioner, such as a Paid Sick Leave claim.

This decision requires employers to prove affirmative steps toward compliance to avoid liquidated damages and confirms the broad, de novo scope of Berman appeals, preventing them from being limited only to claims vetted by the Commissioner.

In Williams v. J.B. Hunt Transport, Inc. (9th Cir. 2025) 151 F.4th 1020, the Ninth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for an employer, holding that its hybrid pay plan qualified for the Labor Code § 226.2 (a)(7) safe harbor because it paid minimum wage in addition to piece-rate pay, not by "borrowing" from it. The court also held that an employer's mere access to log-in/log-out times does not, by itself, constitute constructive knowledge of off-the-clock work.

This decision validates hybrid pay structures under § 226.2 and shields employers from constructive knowledge claims based solely on their access to electronic time records.

In Hirdman v. Charter Communications, LLC (2025) 113 Cal.App.5th 376, the Court of Appeal held the term "exempt employees" in Labor Code § 246 (l)(3) (a paid sick leave calculation method) is unambiguous and includes all exempt categories, such as outside salespersons, not just A/E/P employees.

This decision confirms the broad, plain-meaning scope of this calculation method and serves as a strong reminder that when statutory text is clear, courts will reject attempts to narrow it using extrinsic evidence like legislative history or informal DLSE opinion letters.

In Harrington v. Cracker Barrel Old Country Store, Inc. (9th Cir. 2025) 142 F.4th 678, the Ninth Circuit issued two major holdings limiting FLSA collective actions. First, it held that a court abuses its discretion by authorizing notice to employees who are indisputably subject to arbitration agreements. Second, it held that the specific personal jurisdiction requirements from Bristol-Myers Squibb Company v. Superior Court of California (2017), 582 U.S. 255 do apply to FLSA collectives, meaning a district court lacks jurisdiction over claims from out-of-state opt-in plaintiffs who lack ties to the forum.

This decision severely curtails the ability of plaintiffs to bring nationwide FLSA collective actions, forcing such suits to be filed in the defendant's home state or limiting them to in-state plaintiffs.

In Allison v. Dignity Health (2025) 112 Cal.App.5th 192, the Court of Appeal affirmed the decertification of a meal and rest break class, holding that "new evidence" justifying decertification is not limited to newly existing facts but can include the plaintiffs' own post-certification declarations and expert analysis. The court also affirmed that under the Donohue v. AMN Services, LLC (2021) 11 Cal.5th 58 framework, the employer's evidence of "idiosyncratic reasons for noncompliant meal periods" was sufficient to show individual issues predominated.

This decision expands the definition of "new evidence" available to defendants at the decertification stage and reinforces the high bar plaintiffs face in proving class-wide liability for break violations.

In Palm Springs Promenade, LLC v. Dept. of Industrial Relations (2025) 111 Cal.App.5th 1294, the Court of Appeal held that a development project is not a "municipal affair" exempt from the state's Prevailing Wage Law (PWL) under the "home rule" provision (Cal. Const., art. XI, § 5 (a)) when it is predominantly financed, managed, and owned by a private entity. The court found that the city's minority (25%) financial contribution was insufficient to make the project a municipal affair, even though it qualified as a "public work" under Lab. Code § 1720 (a)(1).

This decision clarifies the limits of "home rule" authority, preventing charter cities from shielding private developers from the PWL on projects that are not fundamentally public in their financing and control.

In Bradsbery v. Vicar Operating, Inc. (2025) 110 Cal.App.5th 899, the Court of Appeal held that revocable, prospective waivers of meal breaks for shifts lasting between 5 and 6 hours are legally valid. The court affirmed summary adjudication for the employer, finding that the plain text of Labor Code § 512 and the relevant Wage Orders, which allow waiver by "mutual consent," do not specify the timing or form of the waiver.

This decision confirms that employers may lawfully obtain written meal break waivers (for 5-6 hour shifts) from employees in advance, such as at hiring, rather than being required to obtain that consent contemporaneously.

In Krug v. Board of Trustees of the California State University (2025) 110 Cal.App.5th 234, the Court of Appeal held that Labor Code § 2802, the employee expense reimbursement statute, does not apply to public employers. Following the analytical framework from Stone v. Alameda Health System (2024) 16 Cal.5th 1040, the court affirmed a demurrer, reasoning that the Legislature's practice of explicitly including public entities in other specific Labor Code provisions demonstrates its intent to exclude them from § 2802's general provisions.

This decision confirms that public employees have no statutory right under § 2802 to be reimbursed for necessary work-related expenses, including remote work costs.

In Perez v. Rose Hills Company (9th Cir. 2025) 131 F.4th 804, the Ninth Circuit held that a defendant removing a class action under CAFA does not need to submit evidence to support its amount in controversy calculation, provided its calculation is a "reasonable interpretation" of the plaintiff's complaint. Following Arias v. Residence Inn by Marriott (9th Cir. 2019) 936 F.3d 920, 925 the court clarified that a defendant may rely on "a chain of reasoning that includes assumptions" based solely on the complaint's allegations.

This decision lowers the bar for CAFA removal, shifting the district court's inquiry from whether the defendant proved the amount with evidence to whether the defendant's assumptions based on the complaint are reasonable.

In Nabors Corporate Services, Inc. v. City of Long Beach (2025) 108 Cal.App.5th 540, the Court of Appeal held that a subcontractor may seek indemnity under Labor Code § 1781 from a higher-tiered contractor for prevailing wage violations, even when the underlying wage claims were resolved via an arbitration award.

The court reasoned that a confirmed arbitration award has the same force and effect as a court judgment for the purposes of the statute. However, the court also affirmed that Labor Code § 1784, which creates different indemnity rights, does not apply retroactively to conduct that occurred before its 2022 enactment.

In Associated General Contractors v. Dept. of Industrial Relations (2025) 108 Cal.App.5th 243, the Court of Appeal upheld new apprenticeship regulations (8 CCR § 202 et seq.) that require apprentices on public works projects to perform only work within their specific, approved training programs. The court affirmed this was a valid exercise of the California Apprenticeship Council's authority and, in doing so, expressly disapproved the holding in Henson v. C. Overaa & Co. (2015) 238 Cal.App.4th 184, which had previously defined an apprentice's trade more broadly by the work of journeymen.

This decision solidifies the agency's power to strictly define and limit the tasks apprentices can perform on public works jobs.

In Villalva v. Bombardier Mass Transit Corp. (2025) 108 Cal.App.5th 211, the Court of Appeal held that a wage and hour plaintiff who loses their claim at a Berman hearing but subsequently prevails in a trial de novo is entitled to attorney's fees and costs under Labor Code §§ 218.5, 226, and 119. It ruled that the trial de novo is an independent "action," not merely an appeal governed by the fee-shifting limits of § 98.2 (c).

This decision confirms that employees do not forfeit their statutory right to attorney's fees by first pursuing, and even losing, an informal Berman hearing.

In E.M.D. Sales, Inc. v. Carrera (2025) 604 U.S. 45, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously held that an employer must prove an employee qualifies for an FLSA exemption by a preponderance of the evidence, rejecting the Fourth Circuit's heightened "clear and convincing" standard. The Court affirmed that preponderance is the default civil standard and found no reason to apply an exception, noting the FLSA is silent on the issue and that even Title VII claims do not require a heightened burden.

This decision resolves a circuit split and clarifies that employers do not face an elevated evidentiary bar when asserting FLSA exemptions.

In Markel v. Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America (9th Cir. 2024) 124 F.4th 796, the Ninth Circuit held that the ministerial exception bars unpaid overtime (FLSA) and fraud claims brought by a mashgiach (kosher supervisor) against a kosher certifying organization. Applying the functional test from Hosanna-Tabor and Our Lady of Guadalupe, the court found the defendant was a religious institution despite its commercial activities and the plaintiff was a minister because he performed "vital religious duties."

This decision expands the ministerial exception's reach into commercial/regulatory religious roles and confirms it bars wage-related claims.

In Chavez v. California Collision (2024) 107 Cal.App.5th 298, the Court of Appeal held that a defendant in a wage and hour action cannot recover costs under Code of Civil Procedure § 998. Following Cruz v. Fusion Buffet, Inc. (2020) 57 Cal.App.5th 221, the court held that the specific, one-way cost-shifting provisions of Labor Code §§ 1194 and 218.5 displace the general, two-way framework of § 998.

This decision solidifies that employers are barred from recovering § 998 costs in wage actions, preserving the Labor Code's policy of protecting plaintiffs from cost-shifting penalties unless their claim was brought in bad faith.

In Bath v. State of California (2024) 105 Cal.App.5th 1184, the Court of Appeal held that a public employee's right to compensation for work already performed matures into an independent contractual right that can be pursued as a breach of contract claim, even if the relevant Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) might bar parallel Labor Code claims.

This decision provides public employees with an independent, contract-based cause of action for unpaid wages that bypasses common statutory defenses like the Portal-to-Portal Act at the pleading stage.

In Silloway v. City and County of San Francisco (9th Cir. 2024) 117 F.4th 1070, the Ninth Circuit held that an employee's FLSA "salary basis" status depends on actual pay practices, not employment contracts or official titles. Reversing summary judgment for an employer that relied on an ordinance calling nurses "salaried," the court held that post-2004 FLSA regulations require analyzing actual pay, and found evidence of improper deductions.

The court also held that a pay correction process does not provide a safe harbor (29 C.F.R. § 541.603(c)) if the improper deductions were not "isolated or inadvertent," confirming employers cannot rely on titles if their pay practices are inconsistent with exempt status.

In Kennedy v. Las Vegas Sands Corp (9th Cir. 2024) 110 F.4th 1136, the Ninth Circuit held that corporate jet pilots are exempt from FLSA overtime, finding their duties involve significant mental complexity and specialized knowledge that satisfy the professional exemption. The court also affirmed that the pilots' on-call time was not compensable "time worked," finding that the pilots were sufficiently free to engage in personal activities.

This decision confirms the professional exemption's applicability to pilots and upholds the Owens standard for analyzing the compensability of flexible on-call arrangements.

In Stone v. Alameda Health System (2024) 16 Cal.5th 1040, the California Supreme Court held that public employers are generally exempt from the Labor Code, and thus PAGA, because government entities are excluded from the statutory definition of "employer" (Labor Code § 18). The court found a clear legislative intent to exclude public entities unless a specific provision explicitly includes them, rejecting the sovereign powers doctrine and adopting a broad definition of "municipal corporation."

This decision definitively shields public sector employers from PAGA liability and most wage and hour claims, confirming they are not subject to the same statutory framework as private employers.

In Ruelas v. County of Alameda et al. (9th Cir. 2024) 108 F.4th 1208, the Ninth Circuit formally adopted the California Supreme Court's recent answer to its certified question (issued Apr. 22, 2024), holding that nonconvicted county inmates are not entitled to Labor Code protections, even when working for a private contractor.

This order procedurally finalizes the California Supreme Court's dispositive ruling, confirming that pretrial detainees are exempt from state minimum wage law.

In Cadena v. Customer Connexx LLC (9th Cir. 2024)107 F.4th 902, the Ninth Circuit held that the de minimis doctrine remains a valid defense to FLSA overtime claims after Sandifer v. U.S. Steel Corp. (2014) 571 U.S. 220, but confirmed that the employer bears the burden of proving the uncompensated time is de minimis. Reversing summary judgment for the employer for a second time, the court found triable issues of fact as to whether time spent booting up computers was de minimis.

This decision confirms that while the de minimis defense survives, it is an affirmative defense that presents a high factual bar for employers to clear on summary judgment.

In Lusardi Construction Co v. Dept of Industrial Relations (2024) 102 Cal.App.5th 1329, the Court of Appeal held that under former Labor Code § 1777.7(d), a prime contractor's actual knowledge of its subcontractor's apprentice violations (former § 1777.5) was sufficient by itself to establish joint and several liability for penalties. The court affirmed the denial of the prime's writ petition, finding substantial evidence supported the administrative finding of knowledge and rejecting the argument that knowledge alone was an insufficient basis for liability.

This decision confirms that prime contractors could be held liable for known subcontractor violations under the former public works statutory scheme.

In Naranjo v. Spectrum Security Services, Inc. (2024) 15 Cal.5th 1056, the California Supreme Court held that an employer's good faith, but mistaken, belief that its wage statements were accurate is a valid defense to "knowing and willful" wage statement penalties under Labor Code § 226. Affirming the denial of penalties for the failure to report missed-break premiums, the court reasoned the violation was not "knowing and willful" because the law on whether such premiums were "wages" was unsettled at the time.

This decision aligns the § 226 standard with the good faith defense for waiting time penalties (§ 203), protecting employers from penalties when they misinterpret ambiguous legal requirements.

In Ruelas v. County of Alameda et al. (2024) 15 Cal.5th 968, the California Supreme Court held that nonconvicted county inmates (pretrial detainees) are not entitled to minimum wage or overtime, even when working for a private contractor in the jail. The court found that Penal Code § 4019.3, which governs inmate labor, applies to all county inmates and exempts them from the Labor Code's wage provisions.

This decision definitively closes the door on state wage claims for pretrial detainees working in county jails, regardless of whether the work program is run by a public or private entity.

In Shah v. Skillz Inc. (2024) 101 Cal.App.5th 285, the Court of Appeal held that lost stock options are not "wages" under the Labor Code, thus barring related tort claims. However, for the surviving breach of contract claim, the court held that damages for lost options may be measured based on "equitable considerations," not just the strict date of breach.

This decision forecloses statutory wage and tort claims for lost options but provides a crucial "equitable" path for plaintiffs to argue for a more favorable valuation date in volatile markets.

In Silva v. Medic Ambulance Service, Inc. (2024) 101 Cal.App.5th 172, the Court of Appeal affirmed the retroactive application of EAESPA (Lab. Code §880 et seq.), holding its validation of "on-call" ambulance rest breaks constitutionally extinguishes pre-existing claims per the factors in In re Marriage of Bouquet (1976) 16 Cal.3d 583, 592. The court also affirmed $2,000 in sanctions against plaintiff's counsel for challenging this settled precedent.

This holding solidifies EAESPA's retroactive effect and serves as a reminder that challenging established appellate holdings is sanctionable.

In Gramajo v. Joe’s Pizza on Sunset, Inc.(2024) 100 Cal.App.5th 1094, the Court of Appeal held that a trial court's discretion to deny costs for a low recovery under Code of Civil Procedure §1033(a) is preempted by Labor Code §1194(a)'s mandate to award fees and costs to prevailing minimum wage plaintiffs "irrespective of the amount recovered."

This decision secures a plaintiff's entitlement to fees in all successful minimum wage cases, shifting the battleground from if fees will be awarded to the reasonableness of the amount sought on remand.

In Huerta v. CSI Electrical Contractors(2024) 15 Cal.5th 908, the California Supreme Court held: (1) time spent in mandatory exit security checks is compensable "hours worked"; (2) on-site travel after a security gate is compensable only if the employer's purpose for the gate is more than just site access; and (3) on-premises meal periods are compensable if employees cannot engage in personal activities.

This decision expands liability for security checks but creates a key factual question: what level of employer control during on-site travel, beyond ordinary rules, is sufficient to render that time compensable?