We invite you to review our newly-posted September 2021 California Employment Law Notes, a comprehensive review of the latest and most significant developments in California employment law. The highlights include:

Wasito v. Kazali, 2021 WL 3878379 (Cal. Ct. App. 2021)

Subiono Wasito and Enny Soenjoto (plaintiffs) were employed as resident managers of a motel owned by the Kazali family. When the Kazalis closed the motel for renovations, plaintiffs were told their employment was being terminated. After plaintiffs demanded their unpaid wages, the Kazalis paid the unpaid salaries, but not the annual bonuses, despite conceding they

We invite you to review our newly-posted March 2020 California Employment Law Notes, a comprehensive review of the latest and most significant developments in California employment law. The highlights include:

Hance v. Super Store Indus., 44 Cal. App. 5th 676 (2020)

The attorneys who represented the employees in a class action filed a motion with the trial court for approval of a settlement of the action and also for an award of attorneys’ fees and a division of those fees among the lawyers in accordance with a fee division agreement that had been

This weekend Governor Brown signed many laws that were authored and gained traction in response to the #MeToo movement:

New Restrictions On Confidentiality Of Sexual Harassment/Discrimination Settlements

Senate Bill 820 prohibits confidentiality or non-disclosure provisions in settlement agreements that prevent the disclosure of factual information involving allegations of sexual misconduct – unless the party alleging the harm desires confidentiality language to protect his or her

Jury panels in the Los Angeles Superior Court (which is often referred to as “The Bank” by the plaintiffs’ bar) have recently delivered multimillion-dollar verdicts to former-employee plaintiffs.  Many employers doing business in California already have insulated themselves from such disasters by adopting comprehensive arbitration regimes, which would require that such cases be heard by a retired judge or employment lawyer rather than a jury

A provision within a settlement agreement that prevents the disclosure of factual information that establishes a cause of action for civil damages for a felony sex offense; an act of childhood sexual abuse; an act of sexual exploitation of a minor; or an act of sexual assault against an elder or dependent adult that is entered into on or after January 1, 2017 is void

DeSaulles v. Community Hosp. of the Monterey Peninsula, 62 Cal. 4th 1140 (2016)

Maureen deSaulles agreed to dismiss her causes of action for breach of contract and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing in exchange for a settlement payment from her former employer in the amount of $23,000. The trial court subsequently exercised its discretion and awarded $12,731.92 in

Lofton v. Wells Fargo Home Mortgage, 2014 WL 5358364 (Cal. Ct. App. 2014)

The Initiative Law Group (“ILG”) represented more than 600 plaintiffs in a class action filed in Los Angeles against Wells Fargo that was initially certified and then was later decertified. After decertification, ILG continued to represent the plaintiffs in their individual lawsuits against Wells Fargo. A similar class action (in which

deSaulles v. Community Hosp. of the Monterey Peninsula, 2014 WL 1724043 (Cal. Ct. App. 2014)

Maureen deSaulles agreed to dismiss with prejudice two of her seven causes of action in exchange for a settlement payment from her former employer in the amount of $23,000. The trial court subsequently exercised its discretion and awarded $12,731.92 in costs to the employer. deSaulles appealed, claiming that the