Photo of Tyler Paetkau

Tyler is a veteran litigator with a deep understanding of California labor and employment law.

A California-based litigator, Tyler has represented employers in labor and employment law matters for over 30 years. As both a trusted advisor and litigator, he has handled a variety of labor and employment challenges, including claims of wrongful termination, discrimination, retaliation, sexual harassment, defamation, wage and hour violations, unpaid commissions, collective and class actions, and unfair labor practice charges. Tyler also represents employers in litigation involving unfair competition, misappropriation of trade secrets, restrictive covenants, and employee mobility issues. He also has extensive experience representing employers in traditional union-management labor relations matters, including union organizing campaigns, strikes, and collective bargaining negotiations. Tyler also specializes in international labor and employment law issues and is active in the ABA’s International Labor and Employment Law Committee.

A new California law requires employers to notify all current and former employees if any signed employment agreement (e.g., offer letter, non-disclosure agreement, employment contract), contains an invalid post-employment covenant not to compete (a “non-compete provision”). Assembly Bill 1076, signed last month by Gov. Newsom, requires employers to give written notice to all affected current and former employees that the non-compete provision is void by February 14, 2024.Continue Reading A Valentine’s Day Treat for California Employees — Employers Must Notify Employees that Non-Compete Provisions Are Void by February 14, 2024

What is caste and caste discrimination?

“Caste” or a “caste system” is a social hierarchy passed down through families and can dictate an individual’s permissible professions as well as aspects of their social life, including whom they can marry.[1] It exists in a variety of ways, but for purposes of defining a legally protected class, it most directly relates to persons of South Asian descent. Importantly, however, an individual’s race or religion is not a caste, and caste and race/religion should not be equated or conflated.[2]Continue Reading An Emerging Protected Class: Caste Discrimination in the United States

In June 2022, the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Viking River Cruises v. Moriana allowed PAGA claims to be split into individual and non-individual (representative) claims, and consequently, under a valid enforceable arbitration agreement, employers could compel arbitration of individual PAGA claims. The U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling established that once individual claims are compelled to arbitration, the remaining non-individual claims should be dismissed for lack of standing. Justice Sotomayor, in her concurring opinion, warned that if the Court’s interpretation of California law as to standing was incorrect, the final authority would rest with the California courts and legislature.Continue Reading California Supreme Court Keeps Representative PAGA Claims Afloat in State Court

When the pandemic hit, many employees began working remotely. Even now, post-pandemic, many employers have maintained flexible work options for employees. With remote working increasing, many employers are grappling with new ways to create a workplace community that can flourish in the new remote work reality. One strategy is the creation of Employee Resource Groups (“ERGs”).Continue Reading Leveraging the Power of Employee Resource Groups While Mitigating Risk: A Practical Guide

In a landmark 8-1 ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court, in Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana (No. 20-1573, June 15, 2022), provided California employers with much needed relief from the onslaught of wage-hour claims brought under the California Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004, Cal. Labor Code sections 2698 et seq. (the “PAGA”).  The Court emphasized the preemptive effect of the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. §§ 1 et seq. (the “FAA”), finding that the FAA preempts a rule of California law that invalidates arbitration agreements containing waivers of the right to assert representative PAGA claims.  The Court overruled the California Supreme Court’s rule to the contrary in Iskanian v. CLS Transp. Los Angeles, LLC, 59 Cal. 4th 348, 380 (2014).  The immediate impact of Viking River is to authorize motions by California employers utilizing mandatory arbitration agreements with class action waivers to dismiss PAGA claims brought in court or, alternatively, to compel arbitration of them.
Continue Reading U.S. Supreme Court Hands California Employers a Huge Win: Under the Federal Arbitration Act, Arbitration Agreements with Class Action Waivers Require Arbitration of PAGA Claims