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
Spring in California can only mean one thing, and no, it’s not Coachella, Dodgers games or even the return of the swallows to San Juan Capistrano—it’s the annual release of the California Chamber of Commerce’s list of “Job Killer Bills.”
Once again, this list proves that former California Governor Jerry Brown had it right when he wrote in a legislative veto message: “Not every
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:
Lopez v. La Casa de Las Madres, 2023 WL 2534998 (Cal. Ct. App. 2023)
Gabriela Lopez worked as shelter manager for a non-profit organization that provides services to women and children who are victims of domestic violence. In September 2016, Lopez gave birth to a child; by December 17, 2016, Lopez had received the full four months of pregnancy-disability leave required by statute, including
Atalla v. Rite Aid Corp., 2023 WL 2521909 (Cal. Ct. App. 2023)
Hanin Atalla and Erik Lund had a social relationship and became “close friends” before Atalla began working at Rite Aid where Lund worked as a district manager/district leader. Atalla and her husband socialized with Lund and his wife, and Atalla and Lund exchanged hundreds of texts; joked with one another in those