County of Los Angeles v. Niblett, 116 Cal. App. 5th 454 (2025)
The County obtained a three-year Workplace Violence Restraining Order (WVRO) pursuant to Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 527.8 that protected “nonparty Samuel S.” from Neill Francis Niblett. Prior to the issuance of the WVRO, both men worked for the county’s fire department (Samuel was an assistant chief and Niblett was a
Roe v. Smith, 116 Cal. App. 5th 227 (2025)
Plaintiffs (Jane Roe and John Doe) sued defendants, a daughter and mother, pseudonymously as “Jenna Smith” and “Mother Smith.” Jenna and Mother Smith told other students that John had sexually assaulted Jenna and Jane. Following an investigation in which John voluntarily cooperated, the school determined John was not responsible with respect to any of
Contreras v. Green Thumb Produce, Inc., 116 Cal. App. 5th 1251 (2025)
Manuel Contreras mistakenly determined that his former employer (Green Thumb Produce) was violating the state’s Equal Pay Act (EPA) by paying him less than his coworkers who were performing similar duties. Contreras did not understand that the EPA prohibits variations in wages based on “gender, race, or ethnicity,” yet none of
Quilala v. Securitas Sec. Servs. USA, Inc., 2025 WL 3639429 (Cal. Ct. App. 2025)
Francisco Quilala alleged sexual harassment based on sexual orientation and other employment-related claims against his former employer (Securitas Security Services). In response to the complaint, the employer filed a motion to compel arbitration, which the trial court denied based on the federal Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual
A new law that took effect on January 1st, California Assembly Bill 692 (“AB 692”), significantly limits employers’ ability to require repayment of bonus, training, relocation and other retention-linked incentives upon a worker’s termination of employment. Employers with workers located in California should review and update their forms of offer letters, employment agreements, and any other documents that may include repayment obligations for
California employers face an important new compliance deadline under the state’s newly enacted Workplace Know Your Rights Act. By February 1, 2026, all California employers must distribute this mandatory “Know Your Rights” Notice to their employees – and, thereafter, must continue to do so annually. This requirement applies to all employers, regardless of size.
The California Labor Commissioner has issued a template of the
Proskauer secured a victory for our client on a motion to compel arbitration in a sex discrimination action filed in the Los Angeles Superior Court. The plaintiff alleged sex-based discrimination and harassment; retaliation; failure to prevent harassment, discrimination, and retaliation; constructive termination; and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Although the plaintiff had executed an arbitration agreement before beginning employment, she argued the agreement was “unconscionable”
On December 26, 2025, a federal judge in the Eastern District of California granted the National Labor Relations Board’s (“NLRB” or “Board”) bid for a preliminary injunction to block enforcement of recently enacted labor legislation that empowers the California Public Employment Relations Board (“PERB”) to regulate certain private-sector labor relations in the state. With the injunction, however, the NLRB will retain its jurisdiction as the
As 2025 winds down, many employers are focused on year-end reviews, budget planning, and compliance checklists for the year ahead. But before turning the page on another year in California employment law, two recent jury verdicts serve as a sobering reminder of the continuing trend of nuclear verdicts as we have previously reported here, here, here, and here. Consider this your
Los Angeles has claimed the top spot on the American Tort Reform Foundation’s (ATRF) annual list of “Judicial Hellholes.” The Report claims that “lawsuit abuse in Los Angeles . . . has propelled the jurisdiction to the very top of the list.” According to the ATRF, the plaintiffs’ bar resorts to various litigation tactics that drive Los Angeles’ notorious nuclear verdicts (i.e., those exceeding $10