Raines v. U.S. Healthworks Med. Group, 2023 WL 5341067 (Cal. S. Ct. 2023)

The Ninth Circuit certified to the California Supreme Court the question of whether FEHA’s definition of “employer” extends to corporate agents of the employer such as a company that conducts preemployment medical screenings.  In this putative class action, plaintiffs allege that their employment offers were conditioned upon their completion of pre-employment

Adolph v. Uber Techs., Inc., 14 Cal. 5th 1104 (2023)

After months of anticipation, the California Supreme Court answered “yes” to the critical question of whether “aggrieved” PAGA plaintiffs retain their standing to pursue representative claims in court after their individual claims have been compelled to arbitration.

Erik Adolph worked as a driver for Uber, delivering food to customers through Uber’s online platform.  As

Rossi v. Sequoia Union Elementary Sch., 2023 WL 5498732 (Cal. Ct. App. 2023)

Pursuant to the State Public Health Officer Order of August 11, 2021, K-12 schools were required to verify the COVID-19 vaccination status of all school workers and to require proof of vaccination or weekly diagnostic screen testing.  Plaintiff Gloria Elizabeth Rossi, an employee of the school district, refused to disclose her

Hodges v. Cedars-Sinai Med. Ctr., 91 Cal. App. 5th 894 (2023)

Deanna Hodges, who worked for Cedars-Sinai as an administrative employee with no patient responsibilities, refused to get vaccinated for the flu, contrary to Cedars’ policy which required all of its employees to get vaccinated in an effort to limit employee transmission of the flu.  The only exceptions were for a “valid medical

We invite you to review our newly-posted May 2023 California Employment Law Notes, a comprehensive review of the latest and most significant developments in California employment law. The highlights include:

Olson v. State of Cal., 62 F.4th 1206 (9th Cir. 2023)

In the latest in a string of defeats for the State of California, a Ninth Circuit panel unanimously held that AB 5 (the anti-independent contractor law) may violate the equal protection rights of independent contractor drivers and the gig companies that retain them.  The panel found that the plaintiffs plausibly alleged that

Militello v. VFARM 1509, 89 Cal. App. 5th 602 (2023)

Shauneen Militello brought a 22-count complaint against fellow co-owners of a cannabis manufacturing and distribution company, including Ann Lawrence.  Lawrence moved to disqualify Militello’s counsel, arguing that Militello had improperly provided to her counsel private emails between Lawrence and her husband that were sent on the company’s email network, which Militello’s attorney attempted to use

The long-running feud between California and the “gig economy” shows no sign of ending soon. On April 28, 2023, the State of California submitted a petition to the Ninth Circuit in Olson v. California, No. 21-55757 (9th Cir.), seeking review or a rehearing before a new panel of judges, after a Ninth Circuit panel in March unanimously held that the plaintiffs (Uber, Postmates, and

California is considering a new law (Assembly Bill 331), also known as the Automated Decision Systems Accountability Act.  Modeled after the Biden Administration’s Blueprint for an AI Bill of Rights (whitehouse.gov), AB 331 would control the use of machine-based systems in making “consequential” employment decisions such as compensation, promotions, hiring, termination, and automated task allocations.

If passed and signed into law, AB

California employers are required to post several notices and distribute various pamphlets informing employees of their employment rights.  Effective January 1, 2023, eight (8) out of eighteen (18) of these required notices will be updated.  The eight (8) notices that will be updated are the following:

1. California Minimum Wage;

2. Family Care and Medical Leave and Pregnancy Disability Leave;

3. Your Rights and Obligations