Prue v. Brady Co./San Diego, Inc., 196 Cal. Rptr. 3d 68 (Cal. Ct. App. 2015)
Adam Prue alleged wrongful termination of his employment based upon a work related injury, which violated the public policy set forth in Labor Code § 132a. The trial court granted the employer’s motion for summary judgment on the grounds that Section 132a “cannot be the basis for a tort
Richtek USA, Inc. v. uPI Semiconductor Corp., 242 Cal. App. 4th 651 (2015)
Richtek sued three of its former employees (all residents of Taiwan) and the company they formed (uPI Semiconductor) for misappropriation of Richtek’s trade secrets. The trial court sustained the former employees’ demurrer to the complaint on the ground that the lawsuit was barred by the Taiwanese statute of limitations after taking
Palacio v. Jan & Gail’s Care Homes, Inc., 242 Cal. App. 4th 1133 (2015)
Yvonne Palacio filed this putative class action against Jan & Gail’s Care Homes (“Care Homes”) based on a policy that required newly hired employees to sign an agreement waiving their right to uninterrupted meal periods. Palacio sought class certification based upon the “general policy” of requiring the waiver without notifying
Cruz v. Sun World Int’l, LLC, 2015 WL 9463140 (Cal. Ct. App. 2015)
Plaintiffs in this putative class action alleged off-the-clock work had been performed by employees, that meal and rest breaks were shortened, that the additional hour of pay for each meal or rest period they were denied was not paid, and that their wage statements were inaccurate. The trial court denied certification
We invite you to review our newly-posted November 2015 California Employment Law Notes, a comprehensive review of the latest and most significant developments in California employment law. The highlights include:
Newly Enacted California Statutes
Balestrieri v. Menlo Park Fire Prot. Dist., 800 F.3d 1094 (9th Cir. 2015)
Firefighters and emergency medical personnel sued the Menlo Park Fire Protection District, claiming that two of the district’s policies violate the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”). In their first claim, the employees claimed they were entitled to overtime for taking their gear to temporary duty stations. In the second, they claimed the
Alcantar v. Hobart Serv., 800 F.3d 1047 (9th Cir. 2015)
Joséluis Alcantar filed this action against his employer to represent a putative class of service technicians for the time spent commuting in the employer’s service vehicles from their homes to their jobsites and then back again. Alcantar also alleged failure to provide the technicians with meal and rest breaks. The district court denied class
Sharif v. Mehusa, Inc., 2015 WL 5969679 (Cal. Ct. App. 2015)
Mahta Sharif sued her former employer (Mehusa) for unpaid overtime, unpaid wages and violation of California’s Equal Pay Act (“EPA”). While Sharif prevailed on her EPA claim, Mehusa prevailed on the overtime and wage claims. Sharif sought reimbursement of her attorney’s fees pursuant to Labor Code § 1197.5(g), and Mehusa sought reimbursement of
Alberts v. Aurora Behavioral Health Care, 2015 WL 6121981 (Cal. Ct. App. 2015)
Valerie Alberts and others, formerly employed as members of the nursing staff at two acute care psychiatric hospitals owned and operated by Aurora, claimed that Aurora’s uniform practices and de facto policies routinely denied nursing staff employees their meal and rest periods and overtime payments. Plaintiffs sought class certification on behalf
SunPower Corp. v. SunEdison, Inc., 2015 WL 5316333 (N.D. Cal. 2015)
Three former employees of SunPower were sued for allegedly breaching SunPower’s computer use policies by accessing files while they were still employed by SunPower that they allegedly later provided to their new employer (SunEdison). SunPower alleged that defendants violated the federal Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (the “CFAA”) by breaching its computer policies