Vondjidis v. Hewlett Packard Corp., 168 Cal. App. 4th 921 (2008)

Alexander Vondjidis was employed by Hewlett Packard at HP’s Athens, Greece office in the 1970s. He purchased shares through HP’s employee stock purchase plan and left HP in 1978. Although HP was aware of Vondjidis’s home address in Athens (the address was listed in HP’s personnel records), HP listed its Athens office (which

Wallis v. PHL Associates, Inc., 168 Cal. App. 4th 882 (2008)

The trial court imposed approximately $43,000 in sanctions against Hygieia Biological Laboratories, its principals and their attorney in this case involving alleged misappropriation of trade secrets. During the course of the litigation, the parties agreed to a protective order, which the trial court issued, allowing the parties to file under seal certain confidential

Starbucks Corp. v. Superior Court, 168 Cal. App. 4th 1436 (2008)

Plaintiffs filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of themselves and approximately 135,000 other Starbucks applicants who had sought jobs at some 1,500 Starbucks locations throughout California. Plaintiffs contended that the Starbucks application violated California Labor Code §§ 432.7 and 432.8, prohibiting employers from asking about marijuana-related convictions that are more than two

Dominguez v. Washington Mut. Bank, 168 Cal. App. 4th 714 (2008)

Yoko Dominguez, a former temporary employee of Washington Mutual assigned to processing outgoing mail, alleged that a co-worker (Javier Gutierrez) had made crude and offensive comments to her after learning that Dominguez was a lesbian. Dominguez complained about Gutierrez’s comments to her supervisor’s supervisor (who was also a lesbian) as well as to

DeJung v. Superior Court, 169 Cal. App. 4th 533 (2008)

Theodore DeJung, a former part-time commissioner of the Sonoma County Superior Court, filed a lawsuit alleging age discrimination after he was not selected to become a full-time commissioner. Before DeJung’s application was denied (in favor of a 43 year old), the Court’s presiding judge told him that the executive committee “want[s] somebody younger [for

People v. Roscoe, 169 Cal. App. 4th 829 (2008)

John and Ned Roscoe, officers, directors, and shareholders of a family company (The Customer Company) whose underground storage tank leaked over 3,000 gallons of gasoline into the ground, were found liable along with the company for $2,493,250 in civil penalties under the state’s “tank laws.” The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment, holding that under

Larner v. Los Angeles Doctors Hosp. Associates, LP, 168 Cal. App. 4th 1291 (2008)

Josephine Larner, a nurse, sued her former employer, a hospital, for allegedly unpaid overtime. Larner brought the action on behalf of herself and all current and former nonexempt workers employed by defendants who failed to receive required premium overtime wages for the previous four years. The hospital successfully moved for

Brewer v. Premier Golf Properties, LP, 168 Cal. App. 4th 1243 (2008)

Christine Brewer, a waitress who had been employed at the Cottonwood Golf Club, quit her job and filed a complaint seeking damages for various alleged violations of the California Labor Code. After a jury trial, Brewer was awarded less than $1,000 for unpaid regular and overtime wages, $6,000 for unpaid meal and

EEOC v. Federal Express Corp., 543 F.3d 531 (9th Cir. 2008)

Tyrone Merritt filed this putative class action on behalf of himself and similarly situated African American and Latino employees, alleging that FedEx’s Basic Skills Test had a statistically significant adverse impact on African American and Latino employees. After issuing a right-to-sue notice to Merritt at his counsel’s request, the EEOC issued an administrative

Chicanos Por La Causa, Inc. v. Napolitano, 544 F.3d 976 (9th Cir. 2008)

In 2007, Arizona enacted the Legal Arizona Workers Act (the “Act”), which targets employers that hire illegal aliens and provides a principal sanction in the form of a revocation of state licenses to do business in Arizona. Various businesses and civil-rights organizations filed this lawsuit, asserting that the Act is preempted