We invite you to review our newly-posted October 2022 California Employment Law Notes, a comprehensive review of the latest and most significant developments in California employment law. The highlights include:

Johar v. CUIAB, 2022 WL 4139848 (Cal. Ct. App. 2022)

Reena Johar, a home improvement sales person, left work to care for a terminally ill relative, but after just one week, the employer “decided she had quit” and gave her no new sales appointments.  Although Johar told the Employment Development Department that she lost her job due to a “temporary layoff,” the employer claimed

Hernandez v. Rancho Santiago Cmty. Coll. Dist., 2018 WL 2057468 (Cal. Ct. App. 2018)

Marisa Hernandez worked on and off as an assistant for the District for a number of years without any complaints about her performance. Eight months into her 12-month probationary period (after which point she would become a “permanent employee”), Hernandez took a temporary disability leave of absence to have

Higgins-Williams v. Sutter Med. Found., 237 Cal. App. 4th 78 (2015)

Michaelin Higgins-Williams worked as a clinical assistant in Sutter’s Shared Services Department. Higgins-Williams reported to her treating physician that she was stressed because of interactions at work with human resources and her manager. Her physician diagnosed Higgins-Williams with “adjustment disorder with anxiety,” and Sutter granted her a stress-related leave of absence of slightly

Sullivan v. Dollar Tree Stores, Inc., 623 F.3d 770 (2010)

Christina Sullivan was the manager of a Factory 2-U store before it filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy. Dollar Tree later purchased Factory 2-U’s existing leasehold on the store where Sullivan was employed. Prior to the anniversary of her hire by Dollar Tree, Sullivan’s mother became ill but Dollar Tree did not provide Sullivan with