Tag Archives: California Supreme Court

Employers Owe No Duty Of Care To Prevent The Spread Of COVID To Employees’ Household Members

Kuciemba v. Victory Woodworks, Inc., 14 Cal. 5th 993 (2023); 74 F.4th 1039 (9th Cir. 2023) The California Supreme Court unanimously ruled that employers are not liable to nonemployees who contract COVID-19 from employee household members who bring the virus home from their workplace, because “[a]n employer does not owe a duty of care under … Continue Reading

Business Entity Agents Of Employer Share Potential FEHA Liability

By Tony Oncidi on September 19, 2023 Posted in California Supreme Court, Class Actions, Court of Appeal, Employment Policies, FEHA, Independent Contractors, Pre-Employment Medical Examinations, Third Party Liability, Uncategorized

Raines v. U.S. Healthworks Med. Group, 2023 WL 5341067 (Cal. S. Ct. 2023) The Ninth Circuit certified to the California Supreme Court the question of whether FEHA’s definition of “employer” extends to corporate agents of the employer such as a company that conducts preemployment medical screenings. In this putative class action, plaintiffs allege that their … Continue Reading

PAGA Plaintiffs May Maintain Representative Claims In Court After Individual Claims Are Compelled To Arbitration

By Tony Oncidi on September 19, 2023 Posted in Arbitration, Arbitration Agreements, Arbitration provision, California Supreme Court, Class Action, Class Actions, Collective Bargaining, Court of Appeal, Employment Contracts, Employment Policies, Independent Contractor, Independent Contractors, PAGA, Uncategorized

Adolph v. Uber Techs., Inc., 14 Cal. 5th 1104 (2023) After months of anticipation, the California Supreme Court answered “yes” to the critical question of whether “aggrieved” PAGA plaintiffs retain their standing to pursue representative claims in court after their individual claims have been compelled to arbitration. Erik Adolph worked as a driver for Uber, … Continue Reading

September 2023 California Employment Law Notes

By Tony Oncidi on September 19, 2023 Posted in appellate court, base compensation, California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, California Labor and Workforce Development Agency, Court of Appeals, Employment Law Notes, Labor Code Section 4553, Liability for Employee’s Actions Outside the Workplace, Off-the-clock Issues, permanent disability, Reasonable Accomodation, reconsideration

We invite you to review our newly-posted September 2023 California Employment Law Notes, a comprehensive review of the latest and most significant developments in California employment law. The highlights include: Employers Owe No Duty Of Care To Prevent The Spread Of COVID To Employees’ Household Members School District Employer Did Not Violate The Law By Requiring … Continue Reading

California Expands FEHA Liability to Include “Institutional Agents” of Employers

By Tony Oncidi, Joseph O’Keefe and David Gobel on August 29, 2023 Posted in California Labor & Employment Law, FEHA, News, Third Party Liability

California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) is already one of the most employee-friendly state civil rights laws in the country. Until now, it was not clear whether employees could sue not only their direct employers for discrimination and harassment, but also other independent businesses that work on behalf on their employers. In Raines v. … Continue Reading

Statute Prohibits Employer Retaliation For Report Of Unlawful Activity Even If It’s Already Known To Employer

By Tony Oncidi on July 18, 2023 Posted in Cal. Lab. Code § 1102.5(b), California Division of Labor Standards Enforcement, California Labor & Employment Law, California Labor Code, California Supreme Court, Immigration, Retaliation, Wage Statements, Whistleblowers

People ex rel. Garcia-Brower v. Kolla’s, Inc., 14 Cal. 5th 719 (2023) The California Supreme Court has held that an employee who makes a whistleblower complaint to his or her employer may bring a retaliation claim under the whistleblower statute (Cal. Lab. Code § 1102.5(b)) even if the subject of the complaint was already known to … Continue Reading

Crisis Averted: California Employers Are Not Liable for “Take-Home” COVID Cases.

By Jonathan Slowik and Morgan Peterson on July 11, 2023 Posted in California Labor & Employment Law, California Supreme Court, Coronavirus, COVID-19, Workers Compensation

Last week, the California Supreme Court unanimously ruled that employers are not liable to nonemployees who contract COVID-19 from employee household members that bring the virus home from their workplace, because “[a]n employer does not owe a duty of care under California law to prevent the spread of COVID-19 to employees’ household members.” Kuciemba v. … Continue Reading

Under-the-Radar Concessions in Adolph Could Shorten PAGA’s Parade Of Horribles

By Jonathan Slowik on June 16, 2023 Posted in Arbitration Agreements, PAGA, Wage and Hour

On May 10, 2023, the California Supreme Court heard oral argument in Adolph v. Uber Technologies, Inc., a closely watched case that will decide whether a Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) plaintiff loses standing to pursue a representative claim when their individual PAGA claim is compelled to arbitration. Observers hoping for a sign that the court was inclined … Continue Reading

March 2023 California Employment Law Notes

We invite you to review our newly-posted March 2023 California Employment Law Notes, a comprehensive review of the latest and most significant developments in California employment law. The highlights include: No Claim By Employee Who Was Friends With Alleged Harasser Pregnancy Discrimination Lawsuit Was Properly Dismissed Employer That Failed To Layoff Employee Before She Became … Continue Reading

Court Compels Individual But Not Representative Claims To Arbitration

By Tony Oncidi on March 31, 2023 Posted in Arbitration Agreements, PAGA

Piplack v. In-N-Out Burgers, 2023 WL 2384502 (Cal. Ct. App. 2023) In-N-Out Burgers appealed from the trial court’s denial of its motion to compel arbitration. The trial court denied the motion because In-N-Out’s arbitration agreement contained an unenforceable PAGA waiver. After the trial court’s ruling, the United States Supreme Court held in Viking River Cruises, … Continue Reading

July 2022 California Employment Law Notes

By Tony Oncidi on July 11, 2022 Posted in California Labor Code, California Labor Code Section 202, California Labor Code Section 203, Class Actions, Collective Bargaining, Drug Testing, Employment Applications, Employment Law Notes, Hiring, Jurisdiction, Labor Code § 226, Meal Periods and Rest Breaks, Military Leave, Retaliation, Statute of Limitations, Workers Compensation

We invite you to review our newly-posted July 2022 California Employment Law Notes, a comprehensive review of the latest and most significant developments in California employment law. The highlights include: Summary Judgment Was Properly Granted To Employer In Whistleblower Case Job Applicants Need Not Be Paid For Time/Expenses Associated With Drug Testing Employer May Have … Continue Reading

Meal/Rest Break Premium Pay Is A “Wage” For Purposes Of Wage Statements And Timely Pay Requirements

By Tony Oncidi on July 11, 2022 Posted in California Labor Code, California Labor Code Section 202, California Labor Code Section 203, Labor Code § 226, Meal Periods and Rest Breaks

Naranjo v. Spectrum Sec. Servs., Inc., 13 Cal. 5th 93 (2022) Gustavo Naranjo alleged that his employer had not provided an additional hour of pay for each day on which Spectrum failed to provide employees with a legally compliant meal break (i.e., had failed to provide “premium pay” pursuant to Cal. Lab. Code § 226.7). … Continue Reading

California Supreme Court to Determine Scope of Employer Liability for At-Home Spread of COVID-19

By Kate Gold and Morgan Peterson on June 27, 2022 Posted in California Labor & Employment Law, Coronavirus, COVID-19, Negligence, Workers Compensation

Last week, the California Supreme Court agreed to decide two unique questions with far-reaching implications for employer liability: (1) may an employer be held liable to an employee’s spouse when an employee contracts COVID-19 in the workplace and then infects their spouse at home, and (2) does an employer have a duty of care to … Continue Reading

March 2022 California Employment Law Notes

We invite you to review our newly-posted March 2022 California Employment Law Notes, a comprehensive review of the latest and most significant developments in California employment law. The highlights include: California Relaxes Standard For Proving Whistleblower Claims At-Will Employee Can Proceed With Labor Code § 970 Claim Doctor Proved Age/Race/Gender Discrimination Former Owner of Company Is … Continue Reading

California Relaxes Standard For Proving Whistleblower Claims

By Tony Oncidi on March 17, 2022 Posted in California Labor Code, Retaliation, Whistleblowers

Lawson v. PPG Architectural Finishes, Inc., 12 Cal. 5th 703 (2022) Plaintiff Wallen Lawson, who was discharged by his employer PPG Architectural Finishes for allegedly poor performance, brought a whistleblower claim against PPG; Lawson claimed he was terminated because he had uncovered and reported a supervisor’s scheme to “mis-tint” unpopular paint colors in order to … Continue Reading

California Rejects Federal Rule For Calculating Overtime Rate For Employees Who Earn Flat Sum Bonus

By Tony Oncidi on March 19, 2018 Posted in California Labor & Employment Law, Overtime, Supreme Court, Wage and Hour

Alvarado v. Dart Container Corp. of Cal., 2018 WL 1146645 (Cal. S. Ct. 2018) Hector Alvarado, who worked as a warehouse associate for Dart, is a member of a putative class of employees who, in addition to their normal hourly wages, received a $15 per day attendance bonus if they were scheduled to work on … Continue Reading

Employee Who Dismissed Claims Upon Receipt Of Settlement Can Recover Costs As Prevailing Party

By Tony Oncidi on May 11, 2016 Posted in Attorney's Fees, Employment Contracts, Settlement

DeSaulles v. Community Hosp. of the Monterey Peninsula, 62 Cal. 4th 1140 (2016) Maureen deSaulles agreed to dismiss her causes of action for breach of contract and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing in exchange for a settlement payment from her former employer in the amount of $23,000. The trial … Continue Reading

PAGA Claims and Arbitration – A Federal Court Parts Ways With Iskanian

By Charles J. Stiegler and Laura Reathaford on October 15, 2014 Posted in FAA, PAGA, Supreme Court

The California Supreme Court’s decision in Iskanian v. CLS Transp. Los Angeles, LLC, (discussed here), held that class action waivers in arbitration agreements are enforceable under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) except as to claims that were made pursuant to the Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA). PAGA allows aggrieved employees to represent other current and … Continue Reading

California Supreme Court Leaves Unanswered Questions in Independent Contractor Case

By Charles J. Stiegler and Jeremy M. Mittman on July 1, 2014 Posted in Class Actions, Independent Contractors

On Monday, June 30, 2014, the California Supreme Court handed down its decision in Ayala v. Antelope Valley Newspapers, a lawsuit brought on behalf of a group of newspaper delivery carriers who alleged that they had been misclassified as independent contractors instead of employees. The trial court had initially denied certification, finding that common issues … Continue Reading

Brinker Round 2: Plaintiffs Secure Class Certification in Trial Court

By Laura Reathaford on September 30, 2013 Posted in Meal Periods and Rest Breaks

After the renowned remand from the California Supreme Court, the Hohnbaum plaintiffs in Brinker Rest. Corp. v. Superior Court, 53 Cal. 4th 1004 (2012) sought to certify meal period claims alleging that all California employees were denied meal periods because Brinker’s corporate meal period policies were unlawful. Plaintiffs argued that Brinker’s corporate policies were unlawful … Continue Reading

California Moves to Reinstate Large Emotional Distress Damage Awards in “Mixed Motive” Cases

By Charles J. Stiegler on August 21, 2013 Posted in Discrimination, Employee Discipline, FEHA, Harassment, New and Proposed Laws and Legislation, Wrongful Termination

As regular readers of this blog know, it has been a busy summer for employment-related legislation in the California Legislature (see here and here). Yet of all the bills currently wending their way through the legislative process, none would affect California employment law more than Senate Bill 655. If enacted, SB 655 would modify the … Continue Reading

California Supreme Court Revises Jury Instructions And Trial Procedures In Discrimination Cases

By Tony Oncidi on March 26, 2013 Posted in Employment Law Notes, FEHA, Wrongful Termination

Harris v. Superior Court, 56 Cal. 4th 203 (2013) Wynona Harris alleged her employment was terminated by the City of Santa Monica because of her pregnancy in violation of the California Fair Employment and Housing Act. The city claimed Harris had been fired for poor job performance – she had two preventable traffic accidents and … Continue Reading

California Supreme Court Rules On Mixed Motive Defense To Discrimination Claims, But Large Verdicts Persist…

By Jacquelyn Crawley on February 22, 2013 Posted in Discrimination, FEHA

Harris v. City of Santa Monica, No. S181004, 2013 Cal. LEXIS 941 (Feb. 7, 2013) Wynona Harris, a bus driver for the City of Santa Monica (the City), alleged that she was fired because of her pregnancy in violation of the prohibition against sex discrimination under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA). The City … Continue Reading

California Supreme Court Approves Union Picketing in Front of Store Entrances

By Tracey Silver on January 22, 2013 Posted in Union Issues

Ralphs Grocery Co. v. United Food & Commercial Workers Union Local 8, 2012 Cal. LEXIS 11911 (Dec. 27, 2012) Ralphs Grocery sought an injunction to prevent a labor union from picketing on the privately owned walkway in front of the only customer entrance to its store. The trial court denied Ralphs’ request for an injunction, … Continue Reading

This website uses third party cookies, over which we have no control. To deactivate the use of third party advertising cookies, you should alter the settings in your browser.