Labor & Employment

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

Calling contrary language in SI 59 LLC v. Variel Warner Ventures LLC (2018) 29 Cal.App.5th 146 dicta, this decision holds that despite Civ. Code 1668, a release may be enforceable while the claim still has not accrued for statute of limitations purposes, at least so long as the plaintiff is aware of the claim she releases and the wrongful acts… 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

The trial court did not err in denying a motion to compel arbitration in this case on the ground of unconscionability.  The employee was required as a condition of employment to sign the arbitration agreement and a separate confidentiality agreement.  The two had to be construed together since they both dealt with resolution of disputes arising out of plaintiff's employment… 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

In response to Smith v. Superior Court (L'Oreal USA, Inc.) (2006) 39 Cal.4th 77, the Legislature enacted Lab. Code 201.3(b), which provides that a temporary worker hired by a staffing company and working on assignment for another employer is not terminated for purposes or receiving a final pay check when the temporary assignment ends, but only when the staffing agency… Read More

Though the ministerial exception to employment discrimination laws is in the nature of an affirmative defense that the defendant must allege and prove, the trial court did not err in allowing the defendant in this case to raise the exception for the first time by a summary judgment motion after the close of discovery.  Plaintiff couldn't show any prejudice because… 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

The FEHA makes an employer strictly liable for sexual harassment by a supervisor, but only if the supervisor is acting in the capacity of supervisor when the harassment occurs.  Here, the trial court properly granted summary judgment to Rite Aid.  Its supervisor had become friends with the plaintiff before she went to work for Rite Aid.  The texted one another… Read More

Proposition 22 (governing the independent contractor status of gig workers)  is unconstitutional insofar as it sought to define what would be an amendment to its provisions.  That provision violated the judiciary's and the legislature's separate powers.  However, those provisions were severable, leaving the rest of the proposition intact. 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

On remand from the Supreme Court, this Court of Appeal decision affirms the trial court's decision not to award statutory penalties under either Lab. Code 203 (failure to pay wages on termination of employment) or 226 (wage statements) for the employer's failure to pay and include in the wage statement, premium pay for missed meal breaks.  Under the statutes, the… 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