Stock Options Are Not Wages Under The Labor Code
Shah v. Skillz Inc., 101 Cal. App. 5th285 (2024)
Gautam Shah sued his former employer Skillz, Inc. for breach of contract, alleging that Skillz did not have cause to terminate his employment and wrongfully prevented him from exercising the stock options he had earned as a Skillz employee. The company allegedly terminated Shah “for cause” because he had forwarded a confidential business report to
November 2023 California Employment Law Notes
We invite you to review our newly-posted November 2023 California Employment Law Notes, a comprehensive review of the latest and most significant developments in California employment law. The highlights include:
- Company That Hired Competitor’s Employee Was Not Entitled To Arbitrate Claims
- Disability Discrimination Claim Was Properly Dismissed On Summary Judgment
- Employee’s Attorney’s “Pervasive Incivility” Justified $460,000 Reduction In Fees
- Employees Were Properly Awarded $7.2 Million
Employee’s Attorney’s “Pervasive Incivility” Justified $460,000 Reduction In Fees
Snoeck v. ExakTime Innovations, Inc., 2023 WL 7014096 (Cal. Ct. App. 2023)
Steve Snoeck prevailed at trial on one of his six claims against his former employer, ExakTime Innovations, and was awarded $1.14 million in attorney’s fees – an amount that the trial court reduced by a “0.4 negative multiplier” to account for Snoeck’s attorney’s “lack of civility throughout the entire course of this
$137 Million Racial Harassment Verdict Against Tesla Slashed by New Jury!
An astronomical $137 million jury verdict against Tesla has again been reduced, for a second (and potentially final) time. Last Monday, following a five-day trial on damages, a federal court jury awarded Owen Diaz, a former Tesla elevator operator, $175,000 in emotional distress damages and $3 million in punitive damages, totaling nearly $3.2 million—almost $134 million shy of the award he originally obtained in 2021.
January 2022 California Employment Law Notes
We invite you to review our newly-posted January 2022 California Employment Law Notes, a comprehensive review of the latest and most significant developments in California employment law. The highlights include:
- Manicurist Can Proceed With Hostile Work Environment Claim
- “Volunteers for Nonprofits Are Not Employees” – Court Affirms Order In Favor Of The American Film Institute
- Nurse’s Discrimination Claims Against Hospital Were Properly Dismissed
- Security
Employer Prevails On Breach Of Nondisclosure Agreement Claim Against Former Employee
Elation Sys., Inc. v. Fenn Bridge LLC, 71 Cal. App. 5th 958 (2021)
Elation Systems sued one of its former software developers, Tiebiao “Joe” Shi, for breach of a nondisclosure agreement and a settlement agreement after he quit his employment and formed a new business entity called Efen Bridge (which became Fenn Bridge). At trial, the jury concluded that Shi had breached the NDA
Los Angeles Jury Hands $155 Million Holiday Gift to Fired Insurance Executive
As we recently reported, California juries continue to award massive verdicts to employees with alarming regularity. And, just in time for the holidays, a Los Angeles Superior Court jury upped the ante on Thursday, handing a fired insurance company executive a verdict totaling $155.4 million – including $150 million in punitive damages.
Plaintiff Andrew Rudnicki worked for Farmers Insurance Exchange as a senior executive
Employer Improperly Adopted Alternative Workweek Schedule But Wage Statement Penalties Are Reversed
Maldonado v. Epsilon Plastics, Inc., 22 Cal. App. 5th 1308 (2018)
Olvin Maldonado filed this class action against his employer based upon an improperly adopted Alternative Workweek Schedule (“AWS”). The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment of the trial court, finding that Epsilon failed to prove that there had been a preadoption vote of the employees adopting a 10/2 AWS (a 12-hour/day schedule
$300,000 In Punitive Damages Upheld In Sexual Harassment Case Despite Nominal Damages Award
State of Arizona v. ASARCO LLC, 2014 WL 6918577 (9th Cir. 2014) (en banc)
Angela Aguilar who worked in a copper mine for approximately 11 months claimed she was sexually harassed, retaliated against, subjected to intentional infliction of emotional distress and was constructively terminated from her employment. After an eight-day trial, the jury found ASARCO liable on Aguilar’s sexual harassment claims in