California Employment Law Notes

Subscribe to California Employment Law Notes via RSS

EEOC v. Federal Express Corp., 543 F.3d 531 (9th Cir. 2008)

Tyrone Merritt filed this putative class action on behalf of himself and similarly situated African American and Latino employees, alleging that FedEx’s Basic Skills Test had a statistically significant adverse impact on African American and Latino employees. After issuing a right-to-sue notice to Merritt at his counsel’s request, the EEOC issued an administrative…

Chicanos Por La Causa, Inc. v. Napolitano, 544 F.3d 976 (9th Cir. 2008)

In 2007, Arizona enacted the Legal Arizona Workers Act (the “Act”), which targets employers that hire illegal aliens and provides a principal sanction in the form of a revocation of state licenses to do business in Arizona. Various businesses and civil-rights organizations filed this lawsuit, asserting that the Act is preempted…

Gunn v. Mariners Church, Inc., 167 Cal. App. 4th 206 (2008)

Robert Gunn sued the church for defamation, invasion of privacy and intentional infliction of emotional distress after the senior pastor announced to the congregation that the church had terminated Gunn from his pastoral position because he had admitted to (homosexual) acts, which the church considered to be a sin. The trial court granted…

McDonald v. Antelope Valley Cmty. Coll. Dist., 45 Cal. 4th 88 (2008)

Plaintiffs in this case alleged racial harassment, discrimination and retaliation against the District. The trial court granted summary judgment to the employer with regard to Sylvia Brown’s claims on the ground they were barred by the statute of limitations applicable to claims asserted under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”).…

Asset Marketing Systems, Inc. v. Gagnon, 542 F.3d 748 (9th Cir. 2008)

Kevin Gagnon, doing business as “Mister Computer,” alleged that his former customer, Asset Marketing Systems (“AMS”), infringed his copyright in six computer programs that he wrote for AMS by continuing to use and modify them without his consent and that AMS misappropriated trade secrets contained in the programs’ source code. After AMS…

Nadaf-Rahrov v. Neiman Marcus Group, Inc., 166 Cal. App. 4th 952 (2008)

Forough Nadaf-Rahrov worked as a clothes fitter for Neiman Marcus in Dallas before transferring to San Francisco in the mid- 1990s. She suffered from recurrent back and joint pain and was diagnosed with carpal tunnel syndrome and osteoarthritis. In November 2003, she commenced a requested family medical leave of absence, which was…

Kullar v. Foot Locker Retail, Inc., 168 Cal. App. 4th 116 (2008)

Crystal Echeverria and two other objectors challenged the fairness and adequacy of a settlement of a class action lawsuit involving approximately 18,000 Foot Locker employees who were required to “purchase and wear shoes of a distinctive design or color as a term and condition of their employment” (the “uniform class”) as well…

Varisco v. Gateway Science & Eng’g, Inc., 166 Cal. App. 4th 1099 (2008)

Gateway engaged Al Varisco to provide construction inspection services on two projects it was doing for the Los Angeles Unified School District (“LAUSD”). Gateway retained Varisco pursuant to a letter agreement whereby he was to be paid $75 per hour for the inspection services, which he performed directly for the LAUSD.…

Stillwell v. The Salvation Army, 167 Cal. App. 4th 360 (2008)

Arthur Stillwell sued The Salvation Army (“TSA”) for breach of an implied agreement to terminate his employment only for good cause. The jury found that TSA breached an implied agreement with Stillwell and awarded him more than $155,000 – but it also determined that Stillwell had executed an enforceable agreement that rendered his…

Brinkley v. Public Storage, Inc., 167 Cal. App. 4th 1278 (2008)

Fred Brinkley, a property manager for Public Storage, asserted class action and individual claims for violations of Labor Code § 226 (requiring accuracy of paystubs) and § 226.7 (meal and rest period requirements). The trial court granted summary adjudication in favor of the employer on these claims, which the Court of Appeal affirmed.…