Skip to Content (Press Enter)

Skip to Nav (Press Enter)

Labor & Employment

Subscribe to California Appellate Tracker

Thank you for your desire to subscribe to Severson & Werson’s Appellate Tracker Weblog. In order to subscribe, you must provide a valid name and e-mail address. This too will be retained on our server. When you push the “subscribe button”, we will send an electronic mail to the address that you provided asking you to confirm your subscription to our Weblog. By pushing the “subscribe button”, you represent and warrant that you are over the age of 18 years old, are the owner/authorized user of that e-mail address, and are entitled to receive e-mails at that address. Our weblog will retain your name and e-mail address on its server, or the server of its web host. However, we won’t share any of this information with anyone except the Firm’s employees and contractors, except under certain extraordinary circumstances described on our Privacy Policy and (About The Consumer Finance Blog/About the Appellate Tracker Weblog) Page. NOTICE AND AGREEMENT REGARDING E-MAILS AND CALLS/TEXT MESSAGES TO LAND-LINE AND WIRELESS TELEPHONES: By providing your contact information and confirming your subscription in response to the initial e-mail that we send you, you agree to receive e-mail messages from Severson & Werson from time-to-time and understand and agree that such messages are or may be sent by means of automated dialing technology. If you have your email forwarded to other electronic media, including text messages and cellular telephone by way of VoIP, internet, social media, or otherwise, you agree to receive my messages in that way. This may result in charges to you. Your agreement and consent also extend to any other agents, affiliates, or entities to whom our communications are forwarded. You agree that you will notify Severson & Werson in writing if you revoke this agreement and that your revocation will not be effective until you notify Severson & Werson in writing. You understand and agree that you will afford Severson & Werson a reasonable time to unsubscribe you from the website, that the ability to do so depends on Severson & Werson’s press of business and access to the weblog, and that you may still receive one or more emails or communications from weblog until we are able to unsubscribe you.

Summary judgment was properly entered against plaintiff on her FEHA disability discrimination claim.  She was fired when she refused to take a flu vaccine which her employer required as a condition of employment.  Plaintiff had undergone chemotherapy for colon cancer, but had survived with the cancer in remission.  Lingering side effects of the chemotherapy were not contraindications for taking a… Read More

Defendant didn't infringe on plaintiff's First Amendment rights by restricting him from talking to potential witnesses and other of defendant's employees about plaintiff's alleged transgressions while defendant conducted an investigation of those matters.  Plaintiff was not prevented from speaking about matters of public concern, but only from discussing his own alleged violation of defendant's policies—a matter of private, personal concern. Read More

Under Lab. Code 2785, the exemptions are retroactive.  Here, a securities investment advisor with a registered broker-dealer (one of the exempt categories) sued for wage and hour violations which occurred before the exemption was enacted.  This decision holds that section 2785, making the exemption retroactive, is constitutional.  There was a rational basis for treating securities investment advisors differently; hence, the… Read More

Former nanny sued parent-employers on four wage-and-hour claims and also for defamation based on statements parents made to a friend the parents involved in an attempt to obtain a release of claims by the nanny in exchange for a severance package.  Held, the statements were not protected speech under the Anti-SLAPP statute since litigation was not then threatened or seriously… Read More

Issued by the same court on the same day as Fuentes v. Empire Nissan, Inc. (2023) 2023 DAR ___, this decision also holds that the standard arbitration provision in a Nissan dealership's employment agreement is not unconscionable because it is not substantively unconscionable.  Contrary to the plaintiff's argument, the arbitration agreement did not prevent the employee from seeking administrative relief… Read More

Disagreeing with Davis v. TWC Dealer Group, Inc. (2019) 41 Cal.App.5th 662, this decision holding that the arbitration provision in Nissan dealerships' standard employment agreement is not unconscionable.  Though having a high degree of procedural unconscionability due to small print size and lengthy, obscure language, the clause is not substantively unconscionable.  Small print size and obtuse phrasing relate to procedural… Read More

Adjunct professors sued USF for failing to give them wage statements that showed hours worked and hourly wage.  After judgment was entered in Gola's favor, the Legislature enacted Lab. Code 515.7 which allows nonprofit universities to avoid certain wage statement requirements if the adjunct professors' wages meet certain criteria.  This decision holds that section 515.7 does not operate retroactively to… Read More

Following Galarsa v. Dolgen California, LLC (2023) 88 Cal.App.5th 639 and Piplack v. In-N-Out Burgers (2023) 2023 Cal. App. LEXIS 166, this decision holds that plaintiff's individual PAGA claims (i.e., those which are based on Lab. Code violations affecting the plaintiff) must be arbitrated.  However, representative PAGA claims based on Lab. Code violations affecting only employees other than the plaintiff… Read More

Olson, Uber and Postmates stated a viable claim that AB 5, which adopts the ABC test of employment for most employees, violates the Equal Protection Clause even under the rational basis test because of its many exemptions, including of app-based gig companies that perform errand services, which have similar business models to Uber and Postmates.  What differentiates this case from… Read More

A plaintiff bringing a pregnancy discrimination claim under Gov. Code section 12945(a)(3)(A) must prove that  (1) the plaintiff had a condition related to pregnancy, childbirth, or a related medical condition; (2) the plaintiff requested accommodation of this condition, with the advice of her health care provider; (3) the plaintiff’s employer refused to provide a reasonable accommodation; and (4) with the… Read More

Reaching the same result as Galarsa v. Dolgen California, LLC (2023) 2023 Cal. App. LEXIS 129, this decision holds that plaintiff's individual PAGA claims (i.e., those which are based on Lab. Code violations affecting the plaintiff) must be arbitrated.  However, representative PAGA claims based on Lab. Code violations affecting only employees other than the plaintiff are not subject to arbitration,… Read More

Under the FLSA, an employer need not pay overtime pay to employees who work in a bona fide executive, administrative, or professional capacity.  Dept. of Labor regulations impose three tests for the exemption's applicability, one of which is that the employee must be paid on a "salary basis."  This decision holds that the regulation defining "salary basis" requires that the… Read More

Summary judgment for defendant employer was reversed in this disability discrimination in employment case.  Defendant tentatively decided to lay plaintiff off before she became disabled, but didn't follow through with that decision until after plaintiff suffered a disabling injury.  Plaintiff produced sufficient evidence to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether defendant's concern with plaintiff's disability led to… Read More

1 2 3 22