Employees Who Recovered $140,000 Were Entitled To $200,000 In Fees/Costs
Villalva v. Bombardier Mass Transit Corp., 108 Cal. App. 5th 211 (2025)
Mark Villalva and Bobby Jason Yelverton are train dispatchers who sued their employer (Bombardier) for allegedly unpaid wages. Rather than filing their claims in court, the employees first sought relief from the California Labor Commissioner, using the so-called “Berman” hearing process pursuant to Cal. Lab. Code § 98, et seq.
District Court Improperly Remanded Action That Was Removed Under CAFA
Perez v. Rose Hills Co., 2025 WL 811096 (9th Cir. 2025)
Elizabeth Perez sued her former employer (Rose Hills) in this putative class action involving alleged violations of various California wage and hour laws. Rose Hills removed the action to federal court under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA), but the district court remanded the action on the ground that Rose Hills had
FAA Does Not Preempt California Anti-Arbitration Statute
Colon-Perez v. Security Indus. Specialists, 108 Cal. App. 5th 575 (2025)
The employer in this case (SIS) challenged Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 1281.98 (requiring an employer to pay arbitration fees within 30 days or waive the right to arbitrate) on various grounds, including that the statute is preempted by the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA). This issue is currently pending before the California
Arbitration Agreement Was Not Substantively Unconscionable
Vo v. Technology Credit Union, 108 Cal. App. 5th 632 (2025)
Thomas Vo sued his former employer (TCU) for violations of the FEHA; TCU responded with a motion to compel arbitration. The trial court denied TCU’s motion on the ground that that it was unconscionable due to the arbitrator’s inability to compel prehearing third-party discovery. The Court of Appeal held because there was
Sexual Harassment Lawsuit Cannot Be Compelled To Arbitration
Casey v. Superior Court, 108 Cal. App. 5th 575 (2025)
Kristin Casey, a former employee of D.R. Horton, Inc., sued the company and one of its employees, Kris Hansen, for sexual harassment, sex discrimination, retaliation and failure to prevent discrimination and harassment in September 2023. D.R. Horton attempted to enforce an arbitration agreement in Casey’s employment contract, which included a choice-of-law provision applying
Employer Did Not Violate FEHA By Denying Employee Disability Retirement Benefits
Lowry v. Port San Luis Harbor Dist., 109 Cal. App. 5th 56 (2025)
John Lowry was employed as a harbor patrol officer before suffering a permanently disabling on-the-job injury. His treating psychiatrist concluded that Lowry suffered from PTSD as a result of the accident and was not fit to return to work and instead should be “medically retired.” Lowry was subsequently terminated because
Employee’s Attorney And Expert Witnesses Were Properly Disqualified For Use Of Employer’s Privileged Information
Johnson v. Department of Transp., 2025 WL 829714 (Cal. Ct. App. 2025)
After Christian L. Johnson sued his employer (Caltrans), an attorney for Caltrans sent a confidential email about the litigation to Nicholas Duncan (Johnson’s supervisor). Duncan then sent an image of the email to Johnson who shared it with his attorney and several retained experts and other individuals. The trial court granted Caltrans’s
USPS Employee’s Hostile Work Environment Claim Can Proceed
Lui v. DeJoy, 129 F.4th 770 (9th Cir. 2025)
Dawn Lui, the former postmaster of the United States Post Office in Shelton, Washington, alleged she was targeted because of her race, sex and national origin. Lui alleged disparate treatment and retaliation in violation of Title VII. The district court granted summary judgment to the Postmaster General, but the Ninth Circuit reversed in
$2.16 Million Defamation Verdict Is Voided On Appeal
Hearn v. Pacific Gas & Elec. Co., 108 Cal. App. 5th 301 (2025)
In this case, the Court of Appeal reaffirmed the principle that an employee’s tort claim is not separately actionable against an employer when it is premised upon the same conduct that gave rise to the termination of employment and where the damages sought are solely related to the loss of