We invite you to review our newly-posted January 2024 California Employment Law Notes, a comprehensive review of the latest and most significant developments in California employment law. The highlights include:
Employer May Not Challenge Voided Employment Agreements Via Interlocutory Appeal
Dominguez v. Better Mortgage Corp., 88 F.4th 782 (9th Cir. 2023)
Underwriter Lorenzo Dominguez filed this putative class and collective action against his former employer, alleging that the company failed to pay proper overtime to him and other similarly situated underwriters. After Dominguez filed the lawsuit, his former employer allegedly attempted to persuade other underwriters at the company not to participate in the
Nurse May Proceed With Class Certification On Wage Statement Claim
Woodworth v. Loma Linda Univ. Med. Ctr., 93 Cal. App. 5th 1038 (2023)
Nicole Woodworth was a registered nurse at Loma Linda University Medical Center from December 2011 to June 2014. In June 2014, she filed a putative class action against Loma Linda, alleging various wage and hour claims on behalf of herself and other employees. She later amended her complaint to add a
Business Entity Agents Of Employer Share Potential FEHA Liability
Raines v. U.S. Healthworks Med. Group, 2023 WL 5341067 (Cal. S. Ct. 2023)
The Ninth Circuit certified to the California Supreme Court the question of whether FEHA’s definition of “employer” extends to corporate agents of the employer such as a company that conducts preemployment medical screenings. In this putative class action, plaintiffs allege that their employment offers were conditioned upon their completion of pre-employment
September 2023 California Employment Law Notes
We invite you to review our newly-posted September 2023 California Employment Law Notes, a comprehensive review of the latest and most significant developments in California employment law. The highlights include:
-
Employers Owe No Duty Of Care To Prevent The Spread Of COVID To Employees’ Household Members
-
School District Employer Did Not Violate The Law By Requiring COVID Vaccination/Weekly Testing
-
Employer Must Prove “Substantial Increased
March 2019 California Employment Law Notes
We invite you to review our newly-posted March 2019 California Employment Law Notes, a comprehensive review of the latest and most significant developments in California employment law. The highlights include:
- Eddie Money Beats Discrimination Lawsuit Based On Free Speech Right;
- Former Accountant Could Proceed With Whistleblower Lawsuit;
- Employer Violated FCRA With Improper Background Check Notice;
- Fruit Growers May Have Been Joint
Employer Violated FCRA With Improper Background Check Notice
Gilberg v. California Check Cashing Stores, LLC, 913 F.3d 1169 (9th Cir. 2019)
While applying for employment with CheckSmart Financial, LLC, Desiree Gilberg signed a “Disclosure Regarding Background Investigation,” which resulted in Gilberg’s filing a putative class action against CheckSmart, claiming it had violated the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”) and the California Investigative Consumer Reporting Agencies Act (“ICRAA”). The district court
Employees Who Voluntarily Used Company Vehicle Are Not Entitled To Travel Time
Hernandez v. Pacific Bell Tel. Co., 29 Cal. App. 5th 131 (2018)
Employees of Pacific Bell who install and repair video and internet services in customers’ homes asserted a putative class action against the company for allegedly unpaid compensation for time they spent traveling in an employer-provided vehicle (loaded with equipment and tools) between their homes and a customer’s residence under an optional
Property Inspectors’ Putative Class Action Was Properly Denied Certification
McCleery v. Allstate Ins. Co., 2018 WL 6583916 (Cal. Ct. App. 2018)
Plaintiffs/property inspectors alleged they were improperly hired as independent contractors by insurance companies and sought payment of unpaid minimum wages, overtime, meal and rest breaks, employee expense reimbursements as well as compliance with various other Labor Code provisions. The trial court concluded that plaintiffs’ proposed class action would not be superior to