Fritsch v. Swift Transp. Co. of Ariz., LLC, 899 F.3d 785 (9th Cir. 2018)
At issue in this case is whether the district court erred in remanding an action to state court that had been removed to federal court under the Class Action Fairness Act (“CAFA”) on the ground that the defendant failed to prove that CAFA’s $5 million amount-in-controversy requirement had been
Jackpot Harvesting Co. v. Superior Court, 26 Cal. App. 5th 125 (2018)
Labor Code Section 226.2, which became effective Jan. 1, 2016, addresses the manner in which piece-rate employees are to be compensated for rest and recovery periods and other non-productive time on the job (“rest/NP time”). The Court of Appeal held that an employer complying with the statute’s “safe harbor” provision by
Employers are increasingly turning to social networking sites to find additional information about candidates. In fact, recent articles suggest that an applicant’s failure to have a social media presence is viewed by many employers as a decided negative, and a 2006 CareerBuilder survey found that 70 percent of employers use social networking sites to research candidates, a number that certainly has gone up since the
On May 1, we reported on the California Supreme Court’s opinion in Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. Superior Court, in which the Supreme Court set forth the standard for determining if a worker may properly be classified as an employee or independent contractor. See Cal. Employment Law Blog (May 1, 2018). An issue that the Court did not address is whether its opinion should
A San Diego jury awarded that amount to a former employee who claimed he was wrongfully terminated based on his arrest record and then defamed.
Michael Tilkey worked for Allstate Insurance for 30 years and was fired from his job as a field sales leader after he admitted to Allstate that he was arrested for domestic violence against his then-girlfriend. Although Tilkey was not convicted
C
alifornia Governor Jerry Brown has signed Assembly Bill 2770 (Assembly Member Irwin; D-Thousand Oaks), an act to amend Section 47 of the Civil Code. The bill should protect both sexual harassment victims and employers against defamation claims from alleged harassers.
The bill was sponsored by the California Chamber of Commerce and passed the Legislature with unanimous, bipartisan support—presumably in recognition that victims and employers
We invite you to review our newly-posted July 2018 California Employment Law Notes, a comprehensive review of the latest and most significant developments in California employment law. The highlights include:
Campbell v. State of Hawaii Dep’t of Educ., 892 F.3d 1005 (9th Cir. 2018)
Patricia Campbell was employed by the Hawaii Department of Education (“DOE”) for nine years until she resigned because she was allegedly harassed and degraded by students on the basis of her race (white) and her sex. She alleges that students called her offensive names (including “f*cking haole”) and that
Newland v. County of Los Angeles, 234 Cal. Rptr. 3d 374 (Cal. Ct. App. 2018)
Donald Prigo worked as a Deputy Public Defender for the County. One day on his way home from work, Prigo hit a car driven by Kevin Vargas who was forced off the road and injured a pedestrian (plaintiff, Jake Newland). Newland sued Prigo, Vargas and the County for negligence,
Liberty Surplus Ins. Corp. v. Ledesma & Meyer Constr. Co., 233 Cal. Rptr. 3d 487 (Cal. S. Ct. 2018)
Ledesma & Meyer Construction Company (“L&M”) contracted with the San Bernardino Unified School District to manage a construction project at a middle school where a 13-year-old student (“Jane Doe”) was allegedly sexually abused by Darold Hecht, an assistant superintendent hired by L&M. After Doe sued