A recent California appellate decision is a stark reminder to employers of just how costly employment litigation has become in the Golden State: Bronshteyn v. California Department of Consumer Affairs.
Diana Bronshteyn, who had been diagnosed with fibromyalgia, sued her former employer, the California Department of Consumer Affairs (the “CDCA”), for disability discrimination and related claims under the California Fair Employment Housing Act—a statute
A California court recently threw the book at some lawyers for relying on artificial intelligence (“AI”) to generate what turned out to be fabricated citations and misstated authorities—that is, so-called “AI hallucinations.”
In Noland v. Land of the Free, L.P., a leasing agent/sales representative alleged no fewer than 25 claims, including violations of California’s wage and hour laws and wrongful termination. The trial court
After years of battles within the state over ride-share driver classification issues, California is redrawing the map of gig-economy labor relations – a measure that would, for the first time in the state, give unions a path to organize rideshare drivers. California Governor Gavin Newsom is framing the bill as the result of a compromise that includes long-sought insurance reforms aimed at lowering fares and
In Kruitbosch v. Bakersfield Recovery Services, Inc., the California Court of Appeal—for the first time—addressed the issue of employer liability for harassment by a non-supervisory co-worker during non-working hours and off-premises conduct.
A coworker (Lisa Sanders) of plaintiff Steven Kruitbosch allegedly subjected him to crude sexual advances at his home and via his personal cell phone away from the premises of their employer, Bakersfield
Since its enactment, the federal Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act has resulted in plaintiffs’ lawyers tacking on increasingly implausible sexual harassment claims to unrelated garden-variety employment claims in a naked attempt to defeat otherwise enforceable arbitration agreements. Numerous courts across the country have permitted (and thereby encouraged) these poison-pill sexual harassment claims, which have become just the latest weapon plaintiffs are
In Hohenshelt v. Superior Court, 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 outcome employers may have hoped for, many employers are correctly viewing the decision as
It’s that time of year, folks—the dog days of August, when vacations are booked, beaches are crowded, and the Department of Finance menacingly recalculates California’s minimum wage. As instructed by statute, August 1st is the date by which state officials must increase (it never goes down!) the minimum wage for the coming year.
So, without further ado: As of January 1, 2026, California’s statewide
Thomas v. Corbyn Restaurant Dev. Corp., 111 Cal. App. 5th 439 (2025)
The parties involved in this personal injury lawsuit settled the case for $475,000. An unknown third-party purporting to be plaintiff’s counsel sent “spoofed” emails to defendants’ counsel providing fraudulent wire instructions for transmitting the settlement proceeds. Defense counsel wired the settlement proceeds to the fraudulent account, and the third party absconded with
Allison v. Dignity Health, 112 Cal. App. 5th 192 (2025)
Two former registered nurses filed a putative class action against their former employer, alleging various wage and hour claims. Although the trial court initially granted in part and denied in part plaintiffs’ motion for class certification, a different trial court judge subsequently granted Dignity Health’s motion to decertify the class based on post-certification discovery