In a welcome reminder that eye-popping punitive damage awards still face meaningful judicial scrutiny, a Los Angeles Superior Court judge has struck down an $83 million punitive damages award that was entered against Liberty Mutual in Slagel v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. However, the court left intact a $20 million award for emotional distress damages associated with alleged age discrimination and harassment.
The case was
Employers love a good investigation story—prompt response, outside counsel, thorough interviews, the whole compliance greatest-hits album. But the California Court of Appeal’s recent decision in Paknad v. Superior Court is a sharp reminder that if you plan to rely on your investigation in litigation, you may end up handing over the director’s cut.
In Paknad, the employer did what many would consider best practice:
The recent court opinion in Lively v. Wayfarer Studios LLC et al involves quite literally a Hollywood drama, but it’s chock-full of practical lessons for employers in and outside Tinseltown —particularly those with connections to California. The case touches on alleged worker misclassification, retaliation, and the geographic reach of California’s strict employment laws.
The well-publicized dispute stems from the production of the 2024 film It
California—where the sun shines, the waves crash, and juries keep dishing out verdicts so large they should come with their own seismic scale. Since our Special Halloween Edition on California’s “scariest” employment law verdicts, the trend toward “nuclear” and even “thermonuclear” jury awards (exceeding $100 million) has not only continued—it’s accelerated. And if employers thought this was just a seasonal horror story, think again:
Ah, California: land of Hollywood, high-tech, empty ocean roads, and—all too often these days—eye-popping jury verdicts. Employment litigation in California now rivals the state lottery as a source of multimillion-dollar payouts. We’ve previously reported on some of the more astonishing numbers (see here, here, and here), but they are only the tip of the iceberg.
Recent cases have led to single-plaintiff jury
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
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
In an unpublished but nonetheless significant opinion, the Ninth Circuit recently affirmed the lower court’s dismissal of a consolidated lawsuit filed by SAG-AFTRA members against their union, finding the claims time-barred and preempted. In relevant part, the dispute was rooted in allegations that SAG-AFTRA, by negotiating a return-to-work agreement that allowed SAG-AFTRA’s studio and producer bargaining partners to impose COVID-19 vaccine mandates, had violated
As we’ve previously reported, the California Legislature last year passed and Governor Newsom signed into law AB 2499, which expanded existing leave requirements for California employers. Prior to passage of AB 2499, California already required employers: (1) to permit employees who are victims of certain violent crimes to obtain relief and (2) to provide such crime victim employees with reasonable accommodations for their safety
On May 19, 2025, Proskauer attorneys successfully compelled to arbitration an employment discrimination lawsuit that had been filed in the Los Angeles Superior Court. While the former employee claimed that she never signed the arbitration agreement because she lacked access to her work email while on medical leave, the defendants established with emails showing that the employee actually did “access the . . . platform”