Miller v. California Dep’t of Corr. & Rehab., 105 Cal. App. 5th 261 (2024)
Maria Miller worked as a correctional officer at the California Institute for Women before she was injured in a slip-and-fall accident in 2016. After Miller had exhausted her workers’ compensation wage replacement benefits in 2018, the Department placed her on an unpaid leave of absence. When the Department subsequently
We invite you to review our newly-posted May 2024 California Employment Law Notes, a comprehensive review of the latest and most significant developments in California employment law. The highlights include:
Vines v. O’Reilly Auto Enterprises, LLC, 2024 WL 1751760 (Cal. Ct. App. 2024)
Renee Vines filed an action against his former employer alleging discrimination and harassment under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”) based on his race and age; that he was retaliated against when he was wrongfully terminated after he complained about the discrimination and harassment; and that his employer failed to prevent
We invite you to review our newly-posted March 2024 California Employment Law Notes, a comprehensive review of the latest and most significant developments in California employment law. The highlights include:
Neeble-Diamond v. Hotel Cal. By the Sea, LLC, 99 Cal. App. 5th 551 (2024)
Amanda Neeble-Diamond sued her employer for violation of the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), but after a jury concluded she was an independent contractor rather than an employee, the trial court entered judgment in favor of the employer (Hotel California). Hotel California then filed a motion for attorney’s fees
Hittle v. City of Stockton, 76 F.4th 877 (9th Cir. 2023)
Ronald Hittle served as the City’s Fire Chief before he was fired (following an investigation by an outside investigator) because he lacked effectiveness and judgment in his ongoing leadership of the Fire Department; used City time and a City vehicle to attend a religious event and approved on-duty attendance of other Fire Department
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 employment offers were conditioned upon their completion of pre-employment
Elizabeth Castelo sued her former employer Xceed Financial Credit Union for wrongful termination and age discrimination in violation of FEHA. After the parties stipulated to binding arbitration, the arbitrator granted summary judgment to Xceed based on a release that Castelo signed after she was notified of the termination decision but before her
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. U.S. Healthworks Medical Group, the California Supreme Court ruled