Martinez v. Eatlite One, Inc., 27 Cal. App. 5th 1181 (2018) Samantha Martinez, a sandwich maker and cashier, sued Eatlite (the owner of a Subway store) for employment discrimination in violation of public policy, gender and pregnancy discrimination, failure to provide reasonable accommodations in the workplace, violation of the California Constitution and negligent supervision and … Continue Reading
Sumner v. Simpson Univ., 27 Cal. App. 5th 577 (2018) Sarah Sumner was the dean of the A.W. Tozer Theological Seminary and was employed pursuant to a written employment agreement. Her employment was terminated by Robin Dummer in his capacity as acting provost of the university on the ground that Sumner had been insubordinate. Sumner … Continue Reading
Nunies v. HIE Holdings, Inc., 2018 WL 5660625 (9th Cir. 2018) Herman Nunies was a delivery driver for HIE Holdings who injured his shoulder and wanted to transfer to a part-time, less-physical warehouse job. The requested transfer was approved and was set to go through until Nunies told HIE about his shoulder injury after which … Continue Reading
Ayon v. Esquire Deposition Solutions, LLC, 27 Cal. App. 5th 487 (2018) Brittini Zuppardo, a scheduling manager for Esquire Deposition Solutions, was talking on her cell phone while driving home from her boyfriend’s house when her vehicle struck Jessica Ayon, causing significant injuries. At the time of the accident, Zuppardo was speaking with Michelle Halkett, … Continue Reading
AMN Healthcare, Inc. v. Aya Healthcare Servs., Inc., 2018 WL 5669154 (Cal. Ct. App. 2018) AMN and Aya are competitors in the business of providing travel nurses on a temporary basis to medical care facilities throughout the country. As a condition of employment with AMN, four of its “travel nurse recruiters” had signed a Confidentiality … Continue Reading
We invite you to review our newly-posted September 2018 California Employment Law Notes, a comprehensive review of the latest and most significant developments in California employment law. The highlights include: Employer Must Obtain Written Authorization To Conduct Background Check Some Of California’s “Sanctuary State” Employer Obligations Are Struck Down No-Employment Provision In Settlement Agreement Is An Unenforceable Restraint Court … Continue Reading
Connor v. First Student, Inc., 2018 WL 3966434 (Cal. S. Ct. 2018) Eileen Connor worked as a school bus driver for Laidlaw Education Services, a company that was later acquired by First Student. First Student retained a consumer reporting agency to conduct background checks on its employees. The background reports elicited information about the employees, … Continue Reading
United States v. California, 314 F. Supp. 3d 1077 (E.D. Cal. 2018) United States District Judge John A. Mendez issued an order enjoining California from enforcing parts of the California Immigration Workers Protection Act (Assembly Bill 450), a new state law that restricts private employers from cooperating with federal immigration enforcement. Among other things, the … Continue Reading
Golden v. California Emergency Physicians Med. Group, 896 F.3d 1018 (9th Cir. 2018) Donald Golden, M.D. is an emergency-room doctor formerly affiliated with the California Emergency Physicians Medical Group (“CEP”), a large consortium of over 1,000 physicians that manages or staffs many emergency rooms in California and other western states. Dr. Golden sued CEP for … Continue Reading
Caldera v. California Department of Corr. & Rehab., 25 Cal. App. 5th 31 (2018) Augustine Caldera is a correctional officer at a state prison who stutters when he speaks. Caldera alleged that the prison’s employees, including a supervisor, “mocked and mimicked” his stutter at least a dozen times over a period of two years. Caldera … Continue Reading
The Chippewa Cree Tribe of the Rocky Boy’s Reservation v. United States Dep’t of the Interior, 2018 WL 3978542 (9th Cir. 2018) Ken St. Marks, a member of the Chippewa Cree Tribe, informed the United States Department of the Interior (the “Department”) that he believed members of the Tribe’s governing body were misusing federal stimulus … Continue Reading
Hicks v. PGA Tour, Inc., 897 F.3d 1109 (9th Cir. 2018) Professional golf caddies sued the PGA Tour, contending they should not be compelled to wear bibs featuring advertising sold by the Tour and local hosts of the PGA tournaments. The caddies allege contract, quasi-contract, publicity and unfair competition claims under California law, a false … Continue Reading
Lacagnina v. Comprehend Sys. Inc., 25 Cal. App. 5th 955 (2018) David Lacagnina sued his former employer for fraud, breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing and “theft of labor by false pretenses” in violation of Cal. Pen. Code §§ 484 and 496. The jury awarded $556,446 in … Continue Reading
Monster Energy Co. v. Schechter, 26 Cal. App. 5th 54 (2018) The attorneys for two individuals who had sued Monster Energy Company signed and approved as to “content and form” a confidential settlement agreement between the individuals and Monster. During an interview with a reporter for lawyersandsettlements.com, one of the plaintiffs’ attorneys disclosed information that … Continue Reading
King v. CompPartners, Inc., 2018 WL 4017874 (Cal. S. Ct. 2018) Two physician-utilization reviewers acting on behalf of Kirk King’s employer determined that a treatment that had been recommended for King (an employee who had suffered an injury covered by workers’ compensation) was not “medically necessary” and decertified the prescription without providing for a weaning … Continue Reading
Jones v. Sorenson, 25 Cal. App. 5th 933 (2018) Homeowner Danita Sorenson hired a gardener (“Odette Miranda dba Designs by Leo”) to work on her property, and Miranda hired Mary E. Jones to help. Jones was injured when she fell from a ladder while trimming a tree that was at least 15 feet tall. Jones … Continue Reading
Troester v. Starbucks Corp., 5 Cal. 5th 829 (2018) In this opinion, the California Supreme Court answered a legal question from the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit: “Does the federal Fair Labor Standards Act’s de minimis doctrine…apply to claims for unpaid wages under California Labor Code sections 510, 1194 and 1197?” … Continue Reading
Rodriguez v. Taco Bell Corp., 896 F.3d 952 (9th Cir. 2018) In this putative class action, employees challenged a special offer that Taco Bell provided to its employees: They could receive discounted meals and complimentary soft drinks so long as they ate the discounted meals on the premises of the restaurant. On behalf of the … Continue Reading
Nishiki v. Danko Meredith, APC, 25 Cal. App. 5th 883 (2018) Taryn Nishiki worked as office manager and paralegal for a law firm before resigning her employment via email on Friday, November 14, 2014. At the time of her resignation, Nishiki was owed $2,880.31 for her accrued but unused vacation time. On Tuesday, November 18, … Continue Reading
Harris v. County of Orange, 2018 WL 4211161 (9th Cir. 2018) This case arises from a restructuring of two benefit plans that the County of Orange provides to its retirees. The retirees allege they have an implied contractual right to receive the benefits provided to them throughout their retirement. Although the district court dismissed the … Continue Reading
Martinez v. Landry’s Rest., Inc., 2018 WL 4091279 (Cal. Ct. App. 2018) The trial court dismissed this putative class action due to plaintiffs’ failure to bring it to trial within five years as required by the Code of Civil Procedure. The Court of Appeal affirmed, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion … Continue Reading
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 … Continue Reading
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 … Continue Reading
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 … Continue Reading
This website uses third party cookies, over which we have no control. To deactivate the use of third party advertising cookies, you should alter the settings in your browser.
