We invite you to review our newly-posted November 2022 California Employment Law Notes, a comprehensive review of the latest and most significant developments in California employment law. The highlights include:
Miller v. Roseville Lodge No. 1293, 83 Cal. App. 5th 825 (2022)
Roseville Lodge No. 1293, Loyal Order of Moose, Inc., hired Charlie Gelatini to move an ATM on its premises. Ricky Lee Miller, Jr., who worked for Gelatini and was the person who performed the work, was injured on the job when he fell from a scaffold. Miller sued the Lodge and its
We invite you to review our newly-posted May 2022 California Employment Law Notes, a comprehensive review of the latest and most significant developments in California employment law. The highlights include:
Mejia v. Roussos Constr., Inc., 76 Cal. App. 5th 811 (2022)
Plaintiffs, unlicensed flooring installers, installed floors on behalf of Roussos Construction, a general contractor. There were three individuals working between plaintiffs and Roussos whom plaintiffs called “supervisors” and Roussos called “subcontractors.” At trial, Roussos maintained that it used independent contractors (the three individuals) who were licensed to perform work not permitted by Roussos’
On May 1, we reported on the California Supreme Court’s opinion in Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. Superior Court, in which the Supreme Court set forth the standard for determining if a worker may properly be classified as an employee or independent contractor. See Cal. Employment Law Blog (May 1, 2018). An issue that the Court did not address is whether its opinion should
Hirst v. City of Oceanside, 236 Cal. App. 4th 774 (2015)
Kimberli Hirst, an employee of American Forensic Nurses, Inc., sued the City of Oceanside after she was allegedly sexually harassed by an Oceanside police officer while providing phlebotomist services on behalf of the Oceanside Police Department. A jury awarded Hirst $1.5 million, which the trial court reduced to $1.25 million. In its motion
Noe v. Superior Court, 237 Cal. App. 4th 316 (2015)
Several vendors who sold food and beverages at various entertainment venues in southern California sued for failure to pay minimum wage and willfully misclassifying them as independent contractors in violation of Cal. Lab. Code § 226.8. In this opinion, the Court of Appeal held that Section 226.8 applies not only to employers who make
Bradley v. Networkers Int’l, LLC, 2012 WL 6182473 (Cal. Ct. App. 2012)
The three named plaintiffs in this case were among approximately 140 skilled workers retained by Networkers to provide repair and installation services at cell sites. Each worker was required to sign a standard contract, which stated that he or she was an independent contractor rather than an employee. The purported independent contractor
Ayala v. Antelope Valley Newspapers, Inc., 2012 WL 4098995 (Cal. Ct. App. 2012)
Plaintiffs Maria Ayala, Rosa Duran and Osman Nuñez sought to certify a class of newspaper home delivery carriers in a lawsuit brought against Antelope Valley Newspapers, Inc. (“AVN”), alleging that AVN had improperly classified the carriers as independent contractors rather than employees in violation of California labor laws. The trial court
Arnold v. Mutual of Omaha Ins. Co., 202 Cal. App. 4th 580 (2011)
Kimbly Arnold filed a complaint against Mutual of Omaha on her behalf and on behalf of a putative class of similarly situated “licensed agents” and “sales representatives” of the company, alleging violations of the California Labor Code, including provisions governing expense reimbursement of employees and timely payment of final wages to