We invite you to review our newly-posted May 2023 California Employment Law Notes, a comprehensive review of the latest and most significant developments in California employment law. The highlights include:
Users May Have Privacy Interest In Emails Sent Over Company Network Absent Express Policy
Militello v. VFARM 1509, 89 Cal. App. 5th 602 (2023)
Shauneen Militello brought a 22-count complaint against fellow co-owners of a cannabis manufacturing and distribution company, including Ann Lawrence. Lawrence moved to disqualify Militello’s counsel, arguing that Militello had improperly provided to her counsel private emails between Lawrence and her husband that were sent on the company’s email network, which Militello’s attorney attempted to use
Google Required To Produce Emails In Response To Former Employer’s Subpoena
Negro v. Superior Court, 2014 WL 5341926 (Cal. Ct. App. 2014)
Navalimpianti USA, Inc. subpoenaed Google, Inc. to produce copies of email messages it had relating to one of Navalimpianti’s former employees, Matteo Negro. Prior to initiating this action against Google in state court in California, Navalimpianti sued Negro and other former employees in state court in Florida for various breaches of duty pursuant
March 2014 California Employment Law Notes
$150,000 Sexual Harassment Verdict And $680,000 Fee Award Affirmed
Taylor v. Nabors Drilling USA, LP, 222 Cal. App. 4th 1228 (2014)
Max Taylor worked as a floorhand on an oil rig where he alleged he was harassed by his supervisors who called him “queer,” “fagot [sic],” “homo,” and “gay porn star” and was subjected to other humiliating and harassing conduct, including simulated masturbation
New California Law Protects Employee Use of Social Media
California Governor Jerry Brown has signed a new law protecting employee use of social media by prohibiting an employer from requiring or requesting an employee or applicant for employment to disclose a username or password for the purpose of accessing the employee’s personal social media. Additionally, an employer may not require an employee or applicant to divulge any personal social media unless the employer reasonably
Ninth Circuit Recognizes Priests’ Privacy Interest In Their Personnel Files
In re Roman Catholic Archbishop of Portland, 657 F.3d 1008 (2011)
Documents that were produced in discovery and filed in the bankruptcy court contained allegations that Fathers “M” and “D” (two priests who were not parties to the Portland Archdiocese’s bankruptcy case) had sexually abused children. The bankruptcy court held that the discovery documents could be disclosed to the public because the public’s interest
Pregnancy Harassment Claim Was Properly Dismissed, And Employee Waived Attorney-Client Privilege By Using Employer’s Computer
Holmes v. Petrovich Dev. Co., 191 Cal. App. 4th 1047 (2011)
Gina Holmes sued her employer for harassment based on pregnancy, retaliation, constructive discharge, violation of the right to privacy and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The trial court granted summary adjudication to the defendants with respect to the claims for harassment, retaliation and constructive discharge, and a jury decided against Holmes with respect
NASA Employees’ Privacy Was Not Invaded By Background Check
NASA v. Nelson, 562 U.S. ___, 131 S. Ct. 746 (2011)
Twenty-eight contract employees of the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (“JPL”), which is owned by NASA but operated by Cal Tech, had never been subjected to a government background investigation. In 2004, a recommendation of the 9/11 Commission prompted the President to order new, uniform identification standards for federal employees, including contractor employees. The Department of
Harmony at the High Court: Supremes Issue Unanimous Decisions on Government Background Checks, Third-Party Retaliation
The U.S. Supreme Court handed down two important employment law decisions in January, embarking upon a year that includes a host of notable cases that onlookers anticipate could bring about significant changes and clarifications in labor and employment law.
Non-Union County Employees Must Be Permitted To Object To Disclosure Of Personal Information
County of Los Angeles v. Los Angeles County Employee Relations Comm’n, 190 Cal. App. 4th 178 (2010)
During the course of collective bargaining, the Service Employees International Union asked the county for the personal contact information (names, home addresses and home telephone numbers) of county employees who are in the bargaining unit but who are not members of the union. When the county refused