Two male LAPD officers (Stephen Glick and Alfred Garcia) obtained a jury verdict for gender discrimination and retaliation after they were treated more harshly than their female partners during an investigation into the alleged mistreatment of a suspect who had been in police custody. When a police union representative complained to
In recent years, it has become increasingly common for plaintiffs to sue anonymously—while at the same time identifying the defendant(s) by name as well as their alleged acts often in lurid and excruciating detail. A lawsuit, of course, is nothing more than a series of allegations and is not in and of itself proof of wrongdoing. But that fact offers cold comfort to those defendants
In Kruitbosch v. Bakersfield Recovery Services, Inc., the California Court of Appeal—for the first time—addressed the issue of employer liability for harassment by a non-supervisory co-worker during non-working hours and off-premises conduct.
A coworker (Lisa Sanders) of plaintiff Steven Kruitbosch allegedly subjected him to crude sexual advances at his home and via his personal cell phone away from the premises of their employer, Bakersfield
On April 7, 2025, the California Court of Appeal reversed a whopping $10 million verdict in favor of an employee in a sexual harassment case due to the trial judge’s improper evidentiary rulings and inappropriate comments during the post-judgment phase of trial. Odom v. Los Angeles Cmty. Coll. Dist., No. B327997, 2025 WL 1021951, at *1 (Cal. Ct. App. Apr. 7, 2025).
Sabrena Odom
On February 26, 2025, in Parra Rodriguez v. Packers Sanitation, Inc., the California Court of Appeal (Fourth Appellate District) issued the latest published decision addressing the practice of filing so-called “headless” Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) claims. In such cases, the plaintiff seeks civil penalties for all allegedly aggrieved employees except themself. In the wake of Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana, 596
The California Court of Appeal dealt another blow to arbitration, just months after we reported the last such decision here.
This time, the Court ruled that the federal Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act (“EFAA”) overrides state law—even in cases in which the employee has signed an arbitration agreement that explicitly invokes state law favoring arbitration.
Kristin Casey, a former
The Empire Struck Back last week when the California Court of Appeal held that the state’s latest back-door attempt to outlaw employment arbitration by any means necessary is preempted by the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA). Hernandez v. Sohnen Enterprises, Inc., 2024 WL 2313710 (Cal. Ct. App. 2024). As indicated in our earlier post on this topic, it was just a matter of time before
Hohenshelt v. Superior Court, 318 Cal. Rptr. 3d 475 (Cal. Ct. App. 2024)
For the seventh time since they became effective in 2020, the California Court of Appeal has published an opinion holding that Cal. Code Civ. Proc. §§ 1281.97 and 1281.98 truly mean what they say: “[I]f the [arbitration] fees or costs… are not paid [by the employer] within 30 days after the
Argueta v. Worldwide Flight Servs., Inc., 97 Cal. App. 5th 822 (2023)
Eunices Argueta worked as an agent in the import department of the employer, a freight operations company, reporting to Dzung Nguyen whom she claimed had sexually harassed her. A jury returned a defense verdict, and Argueta filed a motion for new trial and for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, both of which