In November 2020, California voters passed Proposition 22, which exempted gig economy businesses (such as Uber Technologies Inc., Lyft Inc., DoorDash Inc. and Instacart Inc.) from California Assembly Bill 5 (AB 5). Previously, AB 5 had required these “app-based drivers” to be classified as employees instead of independent contractors. In what is unlikely to be the only judicial attack on Prop. 22, an Alameda County Superior Court Judge recently deemed Prop. 22 unconstitutional and unenforceable.

Although the New York City Fair Chance Act (FCA) has been in effect since October 27, 2015, it has now been amended and employers need to be aware of the changes in order to achieve compliance. The FCA is one of the “ban the box” laws passed in many jurisdictions in recent years. Unless an exemption applies, it generally prohibits employers from inquiring about an applicant’s criminal history prior to making a conditional offer of employment.

There are more than a billion reasons to take a very close look at what is happening in courtrooms across America right now. Nuclear verdicts are occurring with increased frequency and can no longer be ignored. On August 20, 2021, a Nassau County, Florida jury awarded damages in a wrongful death matter in excess of $1 billion, after just five days of testimony and four hours of deliberation. This award included a punitive damages award of $900 million.

New York federal courts have been hospitable to claims by disabled plaintiffs that websites do not comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) due to lack of accessibility based on, among other things, incompatibility with software used by visually impaired individuals and lack of closed captioning on videos that contain audio content as is needed by deaf or hard-of-hearing individuals. A notable new decision took a much different tack, and if it is affirmed on appeal or followed by other jurists, New York federal courts will no longer be a hotbed of these cases.

In Gonzalez v. Mathis (Aug. 19, 2021, S247677) __ Cal.5th___, the California Supreme Court reversed an appellate decision holding that a landowner may be liable to an independent contractor, or the contractor’s workers, for injuries resulting from “known hazards,” as running contrary to the Privette doctrine.

The “Reptile Theory” is a trial strategy that attempts to use fear and anger to make the jury dislike the defendant so strongly they will award a plaintiff a grossly excessive amount of damages. The plaintiff’s attorney will seek to activate the jurors’ “survival mode” instincts by presenting the defendant’s conduct as highly dangerous and worthy of punishment. The defendant’s conduct will be portrayed as a threat to the safety of the general public, and the award as a deterrent needed to protect the community at large. The Reptile Theory appeals to the jurors’ emotions in place of any rational, impartial evaluation of the evidence.

In 2008, Illinois became the first state to regulate the collection and storage of biometric information amidst the advent of pay-by-touch technologies. Nearly 13 years later, as workers across the country return to their workplaces following a global pandemic and have their temperature and other vitals screened, many state legislatures are busy enacting or amending laws pertaining to biometric data. This alert provides a survey of the existing legal landscape as well as some noteworthy developments across different jurisdictions.