Opara v. Yellin, 57 F.4th 709 (9th Cir. 2023)
Joan Opara was terminated from her employment as an IRS revenue officer after the IRS determined she had committed several “UNAX offenses” (i.e., incidents of unauthorized access of taxpayer data). Following her termination, Opara sued the Treasury Secretary, alleging she was terminated in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act and Title VII for,
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:
Killgore v. SpecPro Prof’l Servs., LLC, 51 F.4th 973 (9th Cir. 2022)
While consulting for an environmental project for the United States Army Reserve Command, Aaron Killgore believed he was being required to prepare an environmental assessment in a manner that violated federal law. Killgore was fired shortly after he reported the suspected illegality to his supervisor and the Army Reserve’s project leader Chief
As we previously reported here, in Chamber of Commerce of the U.S.A. v. Bonta, 13 F.4th 766 (9th Cir. 2021), a three member panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals resurrected California Labor Code Section 432.6, which prohibited employers from requiring California employees to agree to arbitrate their employment-related disputes.
In a new twist, however, the same Ninth Circuit
We invite you to review our newly-posted July 2022 California Employment Law Notes, a comprehensive review of the latest and most significant developments in California employment law. The highlights include:
Belaustegui v. International Longshore & Warehouse Union, 2022 WL 2036385 (9th Cir. 2022)
Leon Belaustegui left his job as an entry-level longshore worker to enlist in the U.S. Air Force. After nine years of active duty in the Air Force, he returned to work as a longshoreman and requested a promotion to the position he claims he likely would have attained if he had
Ratha v. Phatthana Seafood Co., 35 F.4th 1159 (9th Cir. 2022)
Plaintiffs in this case (Cambodian villagers) alleged they had been trafficked into Thailand and subjected to forced labor at seafood processing factories in violation of the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act (18 U.S.C. § 1595) (“TVPRA”). The district court granted defendants’ summary judgment motion, which the Ninth Circuit affirmed in this case. The
Johnson v. WinCo Foods, LLC, 2022 WL 2112792 (9th Cir. 2022)
Alfred Johnson brought this class action against WinCo, seeking compensation as an “employee” for the time and expense of taking a drug test as a successful applicant for employment. Plaintiffs argued that because the drug tests were administered under the control of the employer, they qualified as “employees” under California law. The district
Last week, the California Supreme Court agreed to decide two unique questions with far-reaching implications for employer liability: (1) may an employer be held liable to an employee’s spouse when an employee contracts COVID-19 in the workplace and then infects their spouse at home, and (2) does an employer have a duty of care to its employees’ households to prevent the spread of COVID-19?
The
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: