Skip to Content (Press Enter)

Skip to Nav (Press Enter)


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.

Contrary to prior Second Circuit rulings, this decision holds that a plaintiff alleging retaliation in violation of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act's provision (18 U. S. C. §1514A(a)) prohibiting retaliation against employees for engaging in protected whistleblowing activity need not plead or prove that the retaliating employer acted with retaliatory intent.  The employee's prima facie case need merely show that his protected… Read More

This decision holds that some but not all claims for retaliation for whistleblowing activities, in violation of Lab. Code 1102.5, are not intentional acts for which insurance defense and indemnity is barred by Ins. Code 533.  In particular, under Lab. Code 1102.5(c), an employee is protected if he refuses to perform work duties if doing so is actually (not just… Read More

Plaintiff raised a triable issue of fact precluding summary judgment on her disability discrimination claim.  Defendant fired her because she failed a physical exam which allowed an inference that defendant regarded plaintiff as disabled due to balance and strength deficits in her right leg as shown on the physical exam.  Plaintiff also raised a triable issue as to whether she… Read More

Following Light v. California Department of Parks & Recreation (2017) 14 Cal.App.5th 75 and looking holistically at the evidence, plaintiff raised a triable issue of fact precluding summary judgment on her sex discrimination and retaliation claims.  The defendant was not entitled to a presumption of nondiscrimination based on the same actor (hiring and firing) her since the hiring was tied… Read More

Reversing summary judgment on plaintiff's whistleblower retaliation claims under Lab. Code 1102.5, this decision holds that (a) the employee's reports to his supervisor and to the federal contracting officer that he thought he was being asked to prepare reports that violated NEPA was activity protected by section 1102.5--even though plaintiff claimed that the persons he reported to were wrong-doers. Read More

On remand after Bonni v. St. Joseph Health System (2021) 11 Cal.5th 995 held that 8 of Bonni's 10 retaliation claims arose from protected activity under CCP 425.16(e), this decision holds that the absolute litigation privilege precludes Bonni from proving a probability of success on those 8 claims.  Defendant's reports to the Medical Board are statutorily required and hence subject… Read More