Thrower v. Academy Mortg. Corp., 172 F.4th 703 (9th Cir. 2026)
Gwen Thrower was awarded attorneys’ fees, expenses, and costs in her False Claims Act action against Academy Mortgage, her former employer. After the district court approved the settlement in the amount of $38.5 million (including $11.5 million to Thrower personally), it awarded Thrower $8.6 million in attorneys’ fees and $90,000 in
Martinez v. Sierra Lifestar, Inc., 119 Cal. App. 5th 1303 (2026)
Adam Martinez filed this putative class action against Sierra Lifestar, alleging the employer improperly excluded bonuses when calculating employees’ regular rate of pay for purposes of overtime. The trial court denied Martinez’s motion for class certification on the ground that his claims were not typical of the putative class because he had
Santana v. Studebaker Health Care Ctr., LLC, 120 Cal. App. 5th 1 (2026)
When J. Ascencion Santana was hired by Studebaker Health Care Center, he signed a series of documents, including three that were “arbitration related.” In response to Santana’s subsequent wage and hour putative class action, Studebaker filed a motion to compel arbitration, which the trial court denied based upon various “conflicts”
O’Dell v. Aya Healthcare Servs., Inc., 171 F.4th 1173 (9th Cir. 2026)
This case arose from unpaid wage claims brought by former employees of Aya Healthcare, a travel‑nursing agency. The district court initially compelled four cases to individual arbitrations without ruling on the enforceability of the agreement because the agreement contained a delegation clause which provided that an arbitrator would decide the
Walton v. Victor Valley Cmty. Coll. Dist., 119 Cal. App. 5th 1164 (2026)
Jessie Walton sued her employer for sexual harassment‑related claims. The trial court excluded her attorney’s declaration filed in opposition to the employer’s summary judgment motion for a “correctible omission” (failure to state the location where it was signed and that it was subscribed under penalty of perjury under the laws
Guardian Storage Centers, LLC v. Simpson, 119 Cal. App. 5th 509 (2026)
After terminating the employment of Julie Simpson (Guardian’s COO), Guardian’s CEO/owner sued Simpson for a variety of claims, including breach of contract, interference with prospective economic advantage, and breach of fiduciary duty. Simpson cross‑complained against Guardian and the CEO for wrongful termination, sexual harassment (over the course of 14 years), and
Williams v. Legacy Health, 2026 WL 1239760 (9th Cir. 2026)
Employees of Legacy Health were denied religious exemptions from the employer’s COVID‑19 vaccination policy based on the undue hardship the exemptions would have caused the employer’s business. Granting the employees’ exemption requests posed undue hardship to Legacy in that it created a risk that employees would become ill and cause staffing issues from
Husband v. Target Corp., 2026 WL 1430244 (Cal. Ct. App. 2026)
Daniel Husband worked as a fulfillment expert for Target Corp. Husband’s employment was terminated for violations of Target’s workplace violence policy following a series of “threats of violence against coworkers.” Husband sued Target for disability discrimination and related claims. During his deposition, Husband admitted he never informed Target that he had been diagnosed
Paknad v. Superior Court, 119 Cal. App. 5th 1256 (2026)
While still employed by Intuitive Surgical, Michelle Paknad alleged sexual harassment, gender discrimination, and unlawful retaliation. In response, the employer retained outside counsel to investigate. During the investigations that followed, the attorney interviewed multiple witnesses, reviewed documents, and produced two reports containing her findings and conclusions. The employer relied upon the attorney’s investigations
Across the Atlantic, Italy is redefining what counts as a legitimate reason to step away from work. Recent developments in Italian law allow employees to take paid leave to care for sick pets, up to three days per year, with appropriate microchipping and veterinary certification.
This shift builds on an earlier Italian judicial decision recognizing that failing to care for a suffering animal could violate