Union Employee’s Wage/Hour Claims Were Not Preempted By Federal Law
Renteria-Hinojosa v. Sunsweet Growers, Inc., 2025 WL 2351203 (9th Cir. 2025)
Annamarie Renteria-Hinojosa filed two putative class actions against her employer (Sunsweet Growers), alleging various wage and hour violations under California law, including PAGA. Renteria-Hinojosa’s employment was governed by two successive collective bargaining agreements (CBAs) between her union and Sunsweet. In response to the lawsuits, Sunsweet removed both actions to federal court, asserting federal…
Employer Properly Calculated Sick Leave For Exempt Employee
Hirdman v. Charter Commc’ns, LLC, 113 Cal. App. 5th 376 (2025)
Bradley Hirdman filed a lawsuit against his former employer (Charter Communications, LLC) alleging a violation of the Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) based on Charter’s alleged misclassification of Hirdman as an exempt outside salesperson for purposes of calculating his paid sick leave pursuant to Cal. Lab. Code § 246(l)(3). The trial court…
Supreme Court Clarifies Employer’s Good Faith Defense To Liquidated Damages Claim
Iloff v. LaPaille, 18 Cal. 5th 551 (2025)
Laurence Iloff performed maintenance on various structures that were located on property that was owned by Bridgeville Properties, Inc. and managed by Cynthia LaPaille. Under an informal arrangement, Iloff’s employers allowed him to live rent-free in one of the houses on the property but did not provide him any other benefits or compensation for his…
Prevailing Employee’s Counsel Was Entitled To Attorney’s Fees of $4.9 Million
Bronshteyn v. Department of Consumer Affairs, 2025 WL 2658416 (Cal. Ct. App. 2025)
Diana Bronshteyn, who was diagnosed with fibromyalgia, sued her employer (the Department of Consumer Affairs) for disability discrimination, failure to accommodate her disability and related claims. According to the Court of Appeal, “the Department fought the case hard from the start.” Among other things, the Department unsuccessfully opposed Bronshteyn’s motion for…
City of Las Vegas Did Not Discriminate Against Employee Based On Her Race/Gender
Lister v. City of Las Vegas, 148 F.4th 690 (9th Cir. 2025)
Latonia Lister sued the City of Las Vegas for sex- and/or race-based employment discrimination under Title VII. Lister was the city’s first African American female firefighter who had worked for the city in that capacity for almost 30 years. Lister alleged that while she was on duty and under the…
Ministerial Exception Barred Employee’s Discrimination Claims
McMahon v. World Vision, Inc., 147 F.4th 959 (9th Cir. 2025)
World Vision, a religious organization, revoked a job offer it had made to Aubry McMahon to be a remote customer service representative after learning that McMahon was married to a same-sex partner. McMahon sued for discrimination based on sex, sexual orientation and marital status under Title VII and Washington state law.
Attorney Sanctioned $10,000 For Citing Nonexistent, AI-Generated Legal Authority
Noland v. Land of the Free, L.P., 2025 WL 2629868 (Cal. Ct. App. 2025)
Sylvia Noland asserted 25 causes of action against her former employer, including claims for wrongful termination, PAGA and other Labor Code violations, breach of contract, intentional infliction of emotional distress, etc. The employer filed a successful motion for summary judgment, which resulted in dismissal of the case. In the appellate…
Employer Not Liable For Co-Worker’s Off-Duty Conduct, But Should Have Better Protected Employee
Kruitbosch v. Bakersfield Recovery Servs., Inc., 2025 WL 2600238 (Cal. Ct. App. 2025)
A coworker (Lisa Sanders) of plaintiff Steven Kruitbosch allegedly subjected him to crude sexual advances at his home and via his personal cellphone away from the premises of their employer, Bakersfield Recovery Service, Inc. (BRS). Specifically, Sanders sent Kruitbosch multiple unsolicited nude pictures, showed up uninvited to his house, and repeatedly propositioned…
Supreme Court Saves (But Guts) Anti-Arbitration Statute
Hohenshelt v. Golden State Foods Corp., 18 Cal. 5th 310 (2025)
In this closely watched case, the California Supreme Court held that California Code of Civil Procedure Section 1281.98 — a do-or-die statute requiring employers to pay arbitration fees within 30 days or “waive” the right to arbitrate altogether—is not preempted by the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”). While it is not the precise…