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:
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
Nealy v. City of Santa Monica, 2015 WL 632228 (Cal. Ct. App. 2015)
Tony Nealy worked as a solid waste equipment operator for the City of Santa Monica before injuring his knee in July 2003 while moving a large bin full of food waste. Nealy was temporarily totally disabled due to the injury until 2005 when he was released to do “light duty” work
Swanson v. Morongo Unified School Dist., 2014 WL 7399317 (Cal. Ct. App. 2014)
Lauralyn Swanson was a teacher for the Yucca Valley Elementary School who was diagnosed with breast cancer and underwent a mastectomy. After the district’s board of education voted not to renew Swanson’s contract, Swanson sued for discrimination based on medical condition, denial of reasonable accommodation and refusal to engage in the
Kao v. The University of San Francisco, 229 Cal. App. 4th 437 (2014)
Dr. John S. Kao was a tenured professor at USF who submitted a 485-page complaint (plus a 41-page addendum) to the university alleging race-based discrimination and harassment at the school. Kao was not satisfied with the university’s two-page response, which he said did not offer any remedies for the problems he
DFEH v. Lucent Technologies, Inc., 642 F.3d 728 (2011)
The California Department of Fair Employment and Housing and Steven Carauddo alleged Lucent violated the Fair Employment and Housing Act when it terminated Carauddo’s employment as an installer because he could not lift more than 30 pounds due to a back injury. The district court granted summary judgment to Lucent, and the Ninth Circuit Court
Milan v. City of Holtville, 186 Cal. App. 4th 1028 (2010)
Tanya Milan, who worked as a water treatment operator for the City of Holtville, was injured on the job while moving a large piece of metal. After Milan applied for workers’ compensation benefits, a physician who had been retained on behalf of the city, examined her and concluded she would not be able to return to work at the water treatment plant. Shortly thereafter, the city notified Milan that because she would be unable to return to work, it had decided to offer her rehabilitation benefits, which she accepted before taking an online real estate course. Milan continued to receive a regular paycheck from the city until she was notified 18 months after the injury had occurred that the city was terminating her employment. Milan filed this lawsuit against the city, alleging it had violated the Fair Employment and Housing Act by failing to determine whether it could provide effective accommodations for her disability.
Nadaf-Rahrov v. Neiman Marcus Group, Inc., 166 Cal. App. 4th 952 (2008)
Forough Nadaf-Rahrov worked as a clothes fitter for Neiman Marcus in Dallas before transferring to San Francisco in the mid- 1990s. She suffered from recurrent back and joint pain and was diagnosed with carpal tunnel syndrome and osteoarthritis. In November 2003, she commenced a requested family medical leave of absence, which was
Arteaga v. Brink’s, Inc., 163 Cal. App. 4th 327 (2008)
Brink’s employee Carlos Arteaga was the subject of an internal investigation into various shortages totaling $7,668 that occurred while he was acting in his capacity as an ATM messenger. The investigation was conducted after one of Arteaga’s managers noticed there had been 16 shortages in five months on runs in which Arteaga had been
Wysinger v. Automobile Club of S. Cal., 157 Cal. App. 4th 413 (2007)
Guy Wysinger, a former district manager for ACSC’s Santa Barbara office, filed a complaint with the EEOC in 1999 in which he alleged that ACSC had discriminated against him on the basis of his age. Thereafter, Wysinger’s work environment changed – he was no longer invited to be on management committees