Bailey v. San Francisco Dist. Attorney’s Office, 16 Cal. 5th 611 (2024)
Twanda Bailey, an African-American clerk in the San Francisco District Attorney’s Office, sued her former employer for racial discrimination and harassment, retaliation, and failure to prevent discrimination in violation of California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act. The claims stem from a single incident in which one of Bailey’s co-workers with whom
We invite you to review our newly-posted July 2024 California Employment Law Notes, a comprehensive review of the latest and most significant developments in California employment law. The highlights include:
Cadena v. Customer Connexx LLC, 2024 WL 3352712 (9th Cir. July 10, 2024)
Customer Connexx LLC operates a call center for an appliance recycling business, and plaintiffs Cariene Cadena and Andrew Gonzales worked as call center agents for the company. As part of their jobs, agents had to use an electronic timekeeping software to track when they clocked in and out. To clock in
Ibarra v. Chuy & Sons Labor, Inc., 102 Cal. App. 5th 874 (2024)
The trial court dismissed Edelmira Ibarra’s action under the Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (“PAGA”) on the ground that Ibarra failed to comply with PAGA’s prefiling notice requirements. Ibarra’s notice identified four named defendants who employed Ibarra from January 2021 to July 2021 and alleged that all four defendants committed
Chavez v. Alco Harvesting, LLC, 102 Cal. App. 5th 866 (2024)
Plaintiff Maria Chavez’s husband alleged that her husband died due to COVID-19 complications in July 2020, after contracting the disease while working for his employer, Alco Harvesting, LLC. Per Chavez’s complaint, the company placed Chavez’s husband in “close living quarters” that precluded social distancing and “facilitated the transmission of COVID-19.” Alco allegedly became
Rajaram v. Meta Platforms, Inc., 105 F.4th 1179 (9th Cir. 2024)
Plaintiff Purushothaman Rajaram, a naturalized U.S. citizen, applied unsuccessfully to work for Meta Platforms, Inc. several times. Rajaram alleged that Meta refused to hire him because it preferred to hire noncitizens holding an H-1B visa to whom Meta could pay lower wages. Rajaram’s sole claim in this lawsuit was that Meta violated 42
Olson v. State of Cal., 104 F.4th 66 (9th Cir. 2024) (en banc)
California’s Assembly Bill 5 (“AB 5”), which was enacted in 2018, subjects different but similar types of workers to different kinds of classification tests. In December 2019, rideshare driver Lydia Olson, alongside Uber and Postmates, filed a complaint against the State of California attempting to enjoin the state from
Mar v. Perkins, 102 Cal. App. 5th 201 (2024)
Winston Mar brought an action against SierraConstellation Partners, LLC and its CEO (collectively, the “Sierra defendants”), alleging that the LLC had to purchase his partnership interest within 120 days of written notice of his dissociation. In response, the Sierra defendants filed a motion to compel arbitration, arguing that Mar was an employee bound by the
Hernandez v. Sohnen Enterprises, Inc., 102 Cal. App. 5th 222 (2024)
In this decision, the Court of Appeal held that the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) preempts California Code of Civil Procedure Section 1281.97, which requires that an employer pay (and the arbitrator receive) all arbitration fees that are owed within 30 days or face an automatic “waiver” of the right to arbitrate. The Court
Garcia v. Stoneledge Furniture LLC, 102 Cal. App. 5th 41 (2024)
On the first day of Isabel Garcia’s employment, she completed onboarding paperwork electronically. When in 2021, Garcia sued her employer under the Fair Employment and Housing Act alleging a store manager sexually assaulted her, the employer moved to compel arbitration. Garcia opposed to the motion to compel by denying that she ever actually