Jones v. Sorenson, 25 Cal. App. 5th 933 (2018)
Homeowner Danita Sorenson hired a gardener (“Odette Miranda dba Designs by Leo”) to work on her property, and Miranda hired Mary E. Jones to help. Jones was injured when she fell from a ladder while trimming a tree that was at least 15 feet tall. Jones sued Sorenson, claiming the work required a license
Troester v. Starbucks Corp., 5 Cal. 5th 829 (2018)
In this opinion, the California Supreme Court answered a legal question from the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit: “Does the federal Fair Labor Standards Act’s de minimis doctrine…apply to claims for unpaid wages under California Labor Code sections 510, 1194 and 1197?” The California Supreme Court answered the question as
Rodriguez v. Taco Bell Corp., 896 F.3d 952 (9th Cir. 2018)
In this putative class action, employees challenged a special offer that Taco Bell provided to its employees: They could receive discounted meals and complimentary soft drinks so long as they ate the discounted meals on the premises of the restaurant. On behalf of the putative class, Bernardina Rodriguez claimed the employees should
Nishiki v. Danko Meredith, APC, 25 Cal. App. 5th 883 (2018)
Taryn Nishiki worked as office manager and paralegal for a law firm before resigning her employment via email on Friday, November 14, 2014. At the time of her resignation, Nishiki was owed $2,880.31 for her accrued but unused vacation time. On Tuesday, November 18, 2014, the firm mailed Nishiki a handwritten check
Harris v. County of Orange, 2018 WL 4211161 (9th Cir. 2018)
This case arises from a restructuring of two benefit plans that the County of Orange provides to its retirees. The retirees allege they have an implied contractual right to receive the benefits provided to them throughout their retirement. Although the district court dismissed the retirees’ breach of contract claim, the Ninth Circuit
Martinez v. Landry’s Rest., Inc., 2018 WL 4091279 (Cal. Ct. App. 2018)
The trial court dismissed this putative class action due to plaintiffs’ failure to bring it to trial within five years as required by the Code of Civil Procedure. The Court of Appeal affirmed, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by failing to exclude from its calculation of the
Fritsch v. Swift Transp. Co. of Ariz., LLC, 899 F.3d 785 (9th Cir. 2018)
At issue in this case is whether the district court erred in remanding an action to state court that had been removed to federal court under the Class Action Fairness Act (“CAFA”) on the ground that the defendant failed to prove that CAFA’s $5 million amount-in-controversy requirement had been
Jackpot Harvesting Co. v. Superior Court, 26 Cal. App. 5th 125 (2018)
Labor Code Section 226.2, which became effective Jan. 1, 2016, addresses the manner in which piece-rate employees are to be compensated for rest and recovery periods and other non-productive time on the job (“rest/NP time”). The Court of Appeal held that an employer complying with the statute’s “safe harbor” provision by
Employers are increasingly turning to social networking sites to find additional information about candidates. In fact, recent articles suggest that an applicant’s failure to have a social media presence is viewed by many employers as a decided negative, and a 2006 CareerBuilder survey found that 70 percent of employers use social networking sites to research candidates, a number that certainly has gone up since the
On May 1, we reported on the California Supreme Court’s opinion in Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. Superior Court, in which the Supreme Court set forth the standard for determining if a worker may properly be classified as an employee or independent contractor. See Cal. Employment Law Blog (May 1, 2018). An issue that the Court did not address is whether its opinion should