Castillo v. Belkorp AG, LLP, 2026 WL 3181371 (Cal. Ct. App. 2026)
Castillo, a former service technician, signed an arbitration agreement with a class and collective action waiver when he was hired by Belkorp. After his termination, he filed a lawsuit asserting a single cause of action under the Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA), which expressly sought “only to prosecute his non-individual PAGA claims”
Molina v. Triumph Residential Servs., Inc., 2026 WL 3167633 (Cal. Ct. App. 2026)
Tiffany Molina signed an arbitration agreement when she was hired by Triumph Residential Services, which indicated that she was “freely and voluntarily” agreeing to arbitrate her employment-related claims. After she filed a wage-and-hour class action, Triumph moved to compel individual arbitration. Because the parties agreed the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) did
Chin v. DoorDash, Inc., 123 Cal. App. 5th 1050 (2026)
Andrew Chin sued his former employer (DoorDash) for various employment-related claims but, by his own account and “[f]or strategic purposes,” did not include a sexual harassment claim in his complaint. When DoorDash moved to compel arbitration in March 2024, Chin opposed the motion on other grounds and neither mentioned a sex-based harassment claim
Diemert v. City of Seattle, 2026 WL 2903699 (9th Cir. 2026)
Joshua Diemert, a white man who worked in the City of Seattle’s Human Services Department, challenged the City’s Race and Social Justice Initiative, which required employees to participate in racial justice trainings and events, some of which were limited to employees of particular races; the Initiative also sponsored racially-aligned affinity groups or caucuses.
California Chamber of Commerce v. Bonta, 2026 WL 3255527 (9th Cir. 2026)
California Senate Bill 399, which took effect on January 1, 2025, prohibits employers from taking or threatening adverse action against an employee who declines to attend an employer-sponsored meeting or to receive communications the purpose of which is to convey the employer’s opinion about “religious or political matters” – a term the
Schmidt v. City of Pasadena, 2026 WL 2980130 (9th Cir. 2026)
Jonathan Schmidt, a forensic specialist in the Pasadena Police Department, received a religious exemption from the City’s COVID-19 vaccination policy but, as a condition of the exemption, was required to undergo weekly testing and to wear a mask in shared spaces. After being placed on unpaid leave for refusing to test and mask
Lewis-Williams v. San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit Dist., 191 F.4th 981 (9th Cir. 2026)
After the San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District (BART) concluded that it could not accommodate any of the 70 employees found eligible for a religious exemption from its COVID-19 vaccine mandate without undue hardship, six former employees who lost their jobs sued under Title VII and FEHA.
MacDonald v. Oregon Health & Sci. Univ., 2026 WL 2966688 (9th Cir. 2026)
Brittany MacDonald, a registered nurse who provided hands-on care to pregnant mothers, newborns, and immunocompromised patients at Oregon Health and Science University (OHSU), was terminated after OHSU denied her request for a religious exemption from the State’s COVID-19 vaccine mandate for healthcare workers. MacDonald sued individual OHSU officials for violating the
Ridings v. PeaceHealth, 2026 WL 2871881 (9th Cir. 2026)
Karly Ridings, a registered nurse who was pregnant at the relevant time, sent a letter to her employer (the PeaceHealth hospital system in Oregon) requesting a religious exemption from its COVID-19 vaccination policy, citing her Christian beliefs and her religious objection to the use of fetal cell lines derived from abortions in vaccine development. PeaceHealth