Slone v. El Centro Reg’l Med. Ctr., 106 Cal. App. 5th 1160 (2024)
Johnathan Slone, M.D., sued his former employer (El Centro Regional Medical Center) for violation of Health & Safety Code § 1278.5 for retaliating against him after he reported his concerns about patient care. The case proceeded to a four-day bench trial after which the court found in favor of the Medical
Chavez v. California Collision, LLC, 107 Cal. App. 5th 298 (2024)
Before trial on Samuel Zarate’s wage/hour claims, the employer (California Collision, LLC (“CCL”)) made an offer of settlement pursuant to Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 998. After Zarate failed to recover at trial more money from CCL than it had offered before trial, the trial court awarded the company $54,473 in costs pursuant
Howell v. State Dep’t of State Hosps., 107 Cal. App. 5th 143 (2024)
After three years of litigation and a two-week trial, a Napa County jury found Ashley Howell’s former employer (the Department of State Hospitals) liable for disability discrimination and awarded her $36,751 in lost earnings and health insurance benefits but nothing for her alleged emotional distress/pain and suffering. In addition, the trial
EMD Sales, Inc. v. Carrera, 604 U.S. ___, 2025 WL 96207 (2025)
The question in this case is what standard of proof an employer must satisfy in defending against claims asserted under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Several EMD sales representatives sued the company for violating the FLSA by failing to pay them overtime. EMD defended against the claims on the ground
Wentworth v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal., 105 Cal. App. 5th 580 (2024)
Blake Wentworth, formerly a professor at the University of California, Berkeley, sued the University for failure to engage in the interactive process and failure to reasonably accommodate an alleged disability in violation of the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), as well as for violating the California Constitution and the
Royal Canin USA v. Wullschleger, 604 U.S. ___, 2025 WL 96212 (2025)
In this non-employment-related opinion with important implications for litigation throughout the country, the United States Supreme Court held that after a defendant removes a case from state to federal court based on federal question grounds, the plaintiff may in an amended complaint delete all references to federal law and thereby deprive the federal
As we reported here, California’s Senate Bill (S.B.) 399, took effect on January 1, 2025. This law prohibits employers from requiring employees to attend meetings about the company’s opinions on political or religious matters, including discussions about unionization. California joins almost a dozen other states, including Illinois, New York, and Oregon, in enacting union-backed statutes that prohibit so-called “captive audience” meetings.
The Teamsters
In yet another attempt to avoid arbitration agreements, plaintiffs’ lawyers in the wake of the blockbuster court decisions in Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana and Adolph v. Uber Technologies, Inc. began filing so-called “headless” claims for civil penalties under the Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act (“PAGA”). In such cases, the plaintiff seeks civil penalties for all allegedly aggrieved employees except themself. Thus, these
The California Department of Industrial Relations (DIR) has released updated guidance clarifying how the state’s latest statutory enactments will impact employers’ paid sick leave obligations. Specifically, as we reported here, Assembly Bill (AB) 2499 and Senate Bill (SB) 1105 expand the permissible reasons for which employees can use paid sick leave.
The updated FAQs now explain that, in addition to existing uses of paid