According to the Los Angeles Times, a retiring “prison supervising dentist” became a millionaire overnight when the state paid him $1.2 million for unused vacation benefits that he had been accruing for decades. This mammoth payout represents just a drop in the bucket considering the more than $5.6 billion in unfunded liability the state has amassed for vacation and other leave benefits owed to
As we reported here, a split in authority has developed in the California Court of Appeal regarding what to do when an employer moves to compel arbitration of a Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) that is “headless”—that is, a claim seeking penalties on behalf of all allegedly aggrieved employees except the named plaintiff. (This is the latest trick the plaintiff’s bar has come up
On April 7, 2025, the California Court of Appeal reversed a whopping $10 million verdict in favor of an employee in a sexual harassment case due to the trial judge’s improper evidentiary rulings and inappropriate comments during the post-judgment phase of trial. Odom v. Los Angeles Cmty. Coll. Dist., No. B327997, 2025 WL 1021951, at *1 (Cal. Ct. App. Apr. 7, 2025).
Sabrena Odom
Villalva v. Bombardier Mass Transit Corp., 108 Cal. App. 5th 211 (2025)
Mark Villalva and Bobby Jason Yelverton are train dispatchers who sued their employer (Bombardier) for allegedly unpaid wages. Rather than filing their claims in court, the employees first sought relief from the California Labor Commissioner, using the so-called “Berman” hearing process pursuant to Cal. Lab. Code § 98, et seq.
Perez v. Rose Hills Co., 2025 WL 811096 (9th Cir. 2025)
Elizabeth Perez sued her former employer (Rose Hills) in this putative class action involving alleged violations of various California wage and hour laws. Rose Hills removed the action to federal court under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA), but the district court remanded the action on the ground that Rose Hills had
Colon-Perez v. Security Indus. Specialists, 108 Cal. App. 5th 575 (2025)
The employer in this case (SIS) challenged Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 1281.98 (requiring an employer to pay arbitration fees within 30 days or waive the right to arbitrate) on various grounds, including that the statute is preempted by the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA). This issue is currently pending before the California
Vo v. Technology Credit Union, 108 Cal. App. 5th 632 (2025)
Thomas Vo sued his former employer (TCU) for violations of the FEHA; TCU responded with a motion to compel arbitration. The trial court denied TCU’s motion on the ground that that it was unconscionable due to the arbitrator’s inability to compel prehearing third-party discovery. The Court of Appeal held because there was
Casey v. Superior Court, 108 Cal. App. 5th 575 (2025)
Kristin Casey, a former employee of D.R. Horton, Inc., sued the company and one of its employees, Kris Hansen, for sexual harassment, sex discrimination, retaliation and failure to prevent discrimination and harassment in September 2023. D.R. Horton attempted to enforce an arbitration agreement in Casey’s employment contract, which included a choice-of-law provision applying
Lowry v. Port San Luis Harbor Dist., 109 Cal. App. 5th 56 (2025)
John Lowry was employed as a harbor patrol officer before suffering a permanently disabling on-the-job injury. His treating psychiatrist concluded that Lowry suffered from PTSD as a result of the accident and was not fit to return to work and instead should be “medically retired.” Lowry was subsequently terminated because