Hacker v. Fabe, 92 Cal. App. 5th 1267 (2023)

In 2005, attorney Jacqueline Fabe filed claim for unpaid wages against her employer with the Labor Commissioner.  Her employer then filed a malpractice suit against Fabe, and Fabe in response filed a retaliation suit with the Labor Commissioner.  Fabe and the Labor Commissioner later won on all claims.  In March 2010, Fabe filed a motion

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:

On October 22, 2010, the California Court of Appeal in Villacres v. Abm Industries Inc., No. B219584, __ Cal. App. 4th __ (2010) rejected an attempt by a settling class member to use the California Private Attorney Generals Act (PAGA) to bring successive claims for civil penalties against his former employer, from whom he had previously accepted the proceeds from a class action settlement involving similar claims.  In so doing, the Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s granting of summary judgment for the employer on the ground that the plaintiff’s claims were barred under the doctrine of res judicata.  This outcome is a clear victory for employers who purchase costly peace through court-approved class action settlements, and a welcome clarification that PAGA cannot be used to peck an employer to death once such settlements are final.

Le Parc Community Ass’n v. WCAB, 110 Cal. App. 4th 1161 (2003)

Tim Curren, an employee of Advance Property Management (APM), was injured when he fell from a roof while cleaning the rain gutters of one of the properties owned by Le Parc Community Association. (Le Parc had retained APM to perform roof repairs, tree trimming and other maintenance activities.) In addition to filing

Stewart v. U.S. Bancorp, 297 F.3d 953 (9th Cir. 2002)

The employees in this case sued their employer for breach of contract and violation of the Oregon wage law when they were given eight weeks’ severance pay instead of the 12 months’ severance that was provided to “middle management.” The employer removed the case to federal court and moved to dismiss it, asserting that