Labor & Employment

Plaintiff employee's initial complaint sought individual and class relief for Labor Code violations as well as PAGA claims for statutory penalties for the same violations.  After defendant employer moved to compel arbitration, plaintiff amended the complaint to delete the individual and class claims, leaving only the PAGA claims.  This decision holds that the amendment was effective to avoid arbitration.  Under… Read More

Four federal statutes bar discrimination on the basis of race, gender, disability or other protected characteristics by recipients of federal financial assistance; namely Title VI and IX of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, the Rehabilitation Act and the Affordable Care Act.  None of these acts expressly grant private rights of action to victims of discrimination that violates those Acts' provisions. … Read More

While an employer has an affirmative duty to provide employees with a safe place to work (Lab. Code, § 6400(a); Seabright Ins. Co. v. US Airways, Inc. (2011) 52 Cal.4th 590, 603), this decision holds that this duty does not  include ensuring that an off-site meeting place for coworkers and business associates--such as at an employee’s private residence is safe… Read More

The district court erred in granting defendant summary judgment in this case in which the plaintiff Mexican nationals alleged a claim under 18 USC 1595 which gives a private right of actions for forced labor in violation of 18 USC 1589(a).  The latter section prohibits obtaining labor by (among other things) means of abuse of law or legal process.  There… Read More

Employer's arbitration clause was unenforceable because it was unconscionable.  The clause was a mandatory, non-negotiable requirement of employment.  It was procedurally unconscionable because it was given to plaintiff only in English, which he cannot read, and without a schedule of the arbitration fees he could be charged.  It was substantively unconscionable because it allowed the arbitrator to shift attorney fees… Read More

Plaintiff was injured in an auto accident caused by defendant's employee who was returning home after an 8 hour shift as a security guard.  The decision holds that the going and coming rule applies and the employer therefore is not liable for the employee's tort.  There was nothing special about employment as a security guard that created an unusual risk… Read More

A summary judgment in favor of defendant in this whistleblower action is reversed because the defendant brought the motion using the McDonnell Douglas test rather than the statutory test under Lab. Code 1102.6, as explicated in Lawson v. PPG Architectural Finishes, Inc. (2022) 12 Cal.5th 703.  The decision also holds that the same Lawson test applies under Gov. Code 8547.10,… Read More

This decision rejects an employer's argument that a worker must first prove that the employer was the "hiring entity" before applying the ABC test to determine whether a worker is an employee as opposed to an independent contractor. Read More

It is unlawful for an employer to prevent workers from leaving the employer's premises during a meal break.  Doing so converts the meal break into an on-duty meal break, entitling the employee to premium pay. Read More

Employee's claims against his employer for promising a pay raise to all employees if they voted against a union--and then not following through and retaliating against employee when he protested--was preempted by the NLRA as all of the claims alleged conduct that was actually or arguably protected or prohibited under the NLRA. Read More