California Supreme Court

Subscribe to California Supreme Court via RSS

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 two late arrivals to work during her first six months…

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 denied Harris’s allegations and asserted as an affirmative defense that the City had legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons to fire Harris.  At trial, the City asked the court to instruct the jury that if it found a mix of discriminatory and legitimate motives, the City could escape liability by proving that a legitimate motive alone would have led to the same decision.  The trial court refused the instruction and instead told the jury that Harris had to prove that her pregnancy was a “motivating factor/reason for the discharge.”  The jury found in favor of Harris and awarded her $177,905 in damages.  The Court of Appeal reversed, holding that the requested instruction was legally correct and that refusal to give the instruction was prejudicial error.

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, but the court of appeal reversed, holding that two…

The California Supreme Court issued its decision yesterday in Kirby v. Immoos Fire Protection, Inc., S185827, 2012 Cal. LEXIS 3981 (April 30, 2012), holding that attorney’s fees may not be awarded under Cal. Lab. Code § 218.5 to a party that prevails on a claim for meal and rest break violations. Section 218.5 provides that attorney’s fees are to be awarded to the prevailing…

Brinker Rest. Corp. v. Superior Court, 53 Cal. 4th 1004 (2012)

In this long-awaited opinion, the California Supreme Court determined several important issues of law regarding meal and rest breaks. First and foremost, the Supreme Court determined that “an employer’s obligation is to relieve its employee of all duty, with the employee thereafter at liberty to use the meal period for whatever purpose he…

This morning, the California Supreme Court issued its long awaited opinion in Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Superior Court. Taking up two crucial issues that have spawned dozens of class action suits across the state, the Court answered the questions: (1) must an employer merely provide a meal break to employees or must it ensure that its employees actually take such breaks, and (2) when during the workday must meal and rest breaks be taken and how many must be provided?

With respect to the first issue of what “providing the employee with a meal period” means, the Court concluded that “an employer’s obligation is to relieve its employee of all duty, with the employee thereafter at liberty to use the meal period for whatever purpose he or she desired, but the employer need not ensure that no work is done.”

Harris v. Superior Court, 53 Cal.4th 170 (2011)

Plaintiffs in this case are claims adjusters employed by two insurance companies. They filed four putative class actions, claiming they had been erroneously classified as exempt administrative employees and seeking damages based upon unpaid overtime. The court of appeal held as a matter of law that plaintiffs were non-exempt employees who were entitled to overtime pay.…

The California Supreme Court announced today that it will hear oral arguments in the landmark wage-and-hour case Brinker Restaurant v. Superior Court on November 8 in San Francisco. In Brinker, the Court will decide whether employers must merely provide meal and rest breaks to their employees or actually ensure that breaks are taken, as well as the related issue of whether such claims are…

SeaBright Ins. Co. v. US Airways, Inc., 52 Cal. 4th 590 (2011)

US Airways uses a conveyor to move luggage at San Francisco International Airport. US Airways hired independent contractor Lloyd W. Aubry Co. to maintain and repair the conveyor and did not direct Aubry’s employees in their work. The conveyor lacked certain safety guards in violation of various Cal-OSHA regulations. After one of…

Diaz v. Carcamo, 51 Cal. 4th 1148 (2011)

Jose Carcamo, a truck driver for defendant Sugar Transport, caused Dawn Renae Diaz to suffer severe permanent injuries as a result of a traffic accident on Highway 101. Diaz sued Carcamo and Sugar Transport, alleging that Sugar Transport was both vicariously liable for Carcamo’s negligent driving and directly liable for its own negligence in hiring and…