A recent decision from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California granting summary judgment in favor of an employer despite evidence of protected whistleblowing is instructive. Han v. Pfizer (No. 23-cv-039080-AMO).
Background
The plaintiff, a compliance analytics employee, alleged that his former employer, a pharmaceutical company, retaliated against him after he internally reported suspected illegal activity and later reiterated those concerns while
The California Court of Appeal has revived a host of tort claims against a company that allegedly executed a plan to recruit a competitor’s employees, divert its customers, and appropriate its pipeline of active loan applications. Guild Mortgage Co. v. CrossCountry Mortgage LLC, 2026 WL 1505950 (Cal. Ct. App. 2026).
Guild Mortgage alleged that over an 18-month period, CrossCountry Mortgage (CCM) induced and conspired
DATELINE: California—where apparently $100 million verdicts are becoming so common that they barely qualify as news anymore.
As we have previously reported, California juries continue to hand down “nuclear” and even “thermonuclear” employment verdicts at an alarming rate. The latest addition to that growing list comes from San Diego, where a jury awarded a former substance abuse counselor $105 million after
Thrower v. Academy Mortg. Corp., 172 F.4th 703 (9th Cir. 2026)
Gwen Thrower was awarded attorneys’ fees, expenses, and costs in her False Claims Act action against Academy Mortgage, her former employer. After the district court approved the settlement in the amount of $38.5 million (including $11.5 million to Thrower personally), it awarded Thrower $8.6 million in attorneys’ fees and $90,000 in
Martinez v. Sierra Lifestar, Inc., 119 Cal. App. 5th 1303 (2026)
Adam Martinez filed this putative class action against Sierra Lifestar, alleging the employer improperly excluded bonuses when calculating employees’ regular rate of pay for purposes of overtime. The trial court denied Martinez’s motion for class certification on the ground that his claims were not typical of the putative class because he had
Santana v. Studebaker Health Care Ctr., LLC, 120 Cal. App. 5th 1 (2026)
When J. Ascencion Santana was hired by Studebaker Health Care Center, he signed a series of documents, including three that were “arbitration related.” In response to Santana’s subsequent wage and hour putative class action, Studebaker filed a motion to compel arbitration, which the trial court denied based upon various “conflicts”
O’Dell v. Aya Healthcare Servs., Inc., 171 F.4th 1173 (9th Cir. 2026)
This case arose from unpaid wage claims brought by former employees of Aya Healthcare, a travel‑nursing agency. The district court initially compelled four cases to individual arbitrations without ruling on the enforceability of the agreement because the agreement contained a delegation clause which provided that an arbitrator would decide the
Walton v. Victor Valley Cmty. Coll. Dist., 119 Cal. App. 5th 1164 (2026)
Jessie Walton sued her employer for sexual harassment‑related claims. The trial court excluded her attorney’s declaration filed in opposition to the employer’s summary judgment motion for a “correctible omission” (failure to state the location where it was signed and that it was subscribed under penalty of perjury under the laws
Guardian Storage Centers, LLC v. Simpson, 119 Cal. App. 5th 509 (2026)
After terminating the employment of Julie Simpson (Guardian’s COO), Guardian’s CEO/owner sued Simpson for a variety of claims, including breach of contract, interference with prospective economic advantage, and breach of fiduciary duty. Simpson cross‑complained against Guardian and the CEO for wrongful termination, sexual harassment (over the course of 14 years), and