Labor & Employment

The common law rule of exclusive concurrent jurisdiction applies to PAGA suits.  Nothing in the PAGA statutes clearly or unequivocally evince an intent to abrogate that well-established rule in PAGA suits.  Absence of an express first-filed suit requirement in the statute is insufficient to show such an intent.  Invoking the exclusive concurrent jurisdiction rule, the trial court properly stayed this… Read More

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

The relationship between a medical resident and a hospital residency program is primarily an employment relationship, not a teaching relationship.  Accordingly, in judging a resident's claim that she was dismissed from the residency program due to gender discrimination and retaliation for her complaints about gender discrimination, the jury should not be instructed to give academic deference to the residency program's… Read More

This decision holds that Lab. Code 925 is enforceable in federal court.  A California employee who was  not represented by counsel when he signed an employment agreement may void clauses in the contract that choose another state as the forum or another state's law as applicable law.  Having done so, the employee may enforce the contract in federal court, cleansed… Read More

Lab Code 925 prohibits employment contracts from containing provisions requiring an employee to litigate or arbitrate a claim in another state if the claim arises in California or depriving the employee of the substantive protection of California law in a suit arising in California.  A provision that violates the section is voidable by the employee, after which the matter shall… Read More

An employee did not agree to the employer's arbitration policy that was stated only in an employee handbook which the employee acknowledged receiving but did not sign anything agreeing to the employer's policies, particularly as the acknowledgement of receipt of the handbook didn't reference arbitration and the handbook itself said it was not an agreement.  The fact that the handbook… Read More

Lab. Code 970 prohibits an employer from inducing an employee to relocate and accept employment by means of knowingly false representations about the kind, character, or existence of work or how long it will last.  Here, the trial court erred in granting the defendant employer summary judgment on plaintiff's claim under section 970.  The at-will employment contract that the plaintiff… Read More

There is no right to a jury trial in a PAGA suit.  In such a suit a private plaintiff brings on the state's behalf a claim that otherwise would be handled by an administrative agency subject to trial court review, both without jury.  It would be anomalous to grant the private plaintiff greater rights than the administrative agency in whose… Read More

Lab. Code 1102.6 prescribes the burdens of proof on a claim for retaliation against a whistleblower in violation of Lab. Code 1102.5.  First, the employee-whistleblower bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that retaliation against him for whistleblowing was a contributing factor in the employer’s taking adverse employment action against him.  Then, the employer bears the… Read More

Following Usher v. White (2021) 64 Cal.App.5th 883, this decision holds that, under Lab. Code 558.1, an owner, officer, director, or managing agent of the employer may be held liable for the employer's violation of an IWC wage order or of certain wage and hour sections of the Labor Code if the individual defendant had some oversight of the employer's… Read More

The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration's regulations under the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Act preempt California state laws governing meal and rest breaks for truckers, both long-haul and short-haul, in accordance with the Administration's interpretation of its own regulations to which deference is owed. Read More