Hooper v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 2012 WL 3124970 (9th Cir. 2012)

Nyle J. Hooper brought suit against Lockheed Martin under the qui tam provisions of the False Claims Act (the “FCA”). Hooper filed suit in the District Court for the District of Maryland, which transferred the suit at Lockheed’s request to the Central District of California on forum non conveniens grounds. The California district

We invite you to review our newly posted September 2011 California Employment Law Notes — a comprehensive review of the latest and most significant developments in California employment law.  The highlights include:

Johnson v. Lucent Techs. Inc., 653 F.3d 1000 (2011)

In 2008, Russell H. Johnson, III, an African-American, sued Lucent and the administrator of his disability insurance benefits for retaliation in violation of Title VII, violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1981 and intentional infliction of emotional distress in retaliation for his filing suit against Lucent in 2005 for stopping payment of his disability benefits. In

Quinn v. U.S. Bank, N.A., 196 Cal. App. 4th 168 (2011)

Robert Quinn, a former senior vice president of U.S. Bank, alleged he was denied accommodation, harassed and terminated because of a physical disability in violation of the Fair Employment and Housing Act. U.S. Bank obtained summary judgment from the trial court on the ground that Quinn’s FEHA claims were preempted by the dismissal-at-pleasure

Trovato v. Beckman Coulter, Inc., 192 Cal. App. 4th 319 (2011)

Irene Trovato, who was employed as a sales representative for Beckman Coulter, submitted a letter of resignation on May 14, 2007, with an effective date of May 25, 2007. On May 8, 2008, Trovato filed an administrative complaint against Beckman and her former supervisor, Michael Allyn. On May 22, 2008, Trovato sued Beckman

On November 18, the California Supreme Court in Pineda v. Bank of America, No. S170758 (Cal. Nov. 18, 2010) (pdf) clarified two issues regarding so-called “waiting time penalties” (i.e., penalties under California Labor Code Section 203 associated with the late payment of final wages upon termination of employment). First, the Court ruled that a three-year statute of limitations applies to such actions, whether or not accompanied by a claim for the underlying late wages. Second, it held that waiting time penalties are not recoverable as restitution under California’s unfair competition law, Business and Professions Code Section 17200 (the “UCL”). While the latter ruling is marginally beneficial to employers by limiting liability under the UCL, the Court’s finding of a three-year statute of limitations for waiting time penalties dramatically expands potential employer liability.

Oravecz v. New York Life Ins. Co., 95 Cal. Rptr. 3d 1 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009)

Paul Oravecz sued Steve Roth and New York Life (which was allegedly Roth’s employer) after losing money in an investment in an offshore foreign currency trading fund, which Oravecz alleged was a “Ponzi scheme.” Among the claims Oravecz alleged against New York Life were negligent misrepresentation, failure to

Oravecz v. New York Life Ins. Co., 95 Cal. Rptr 3d 1 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009)

Paul Oravecz sued Steve Roth and New York Life (which was allegedly Roth’s employer) after losing money in an investment in an offshore foreign currency trading fund, which Oravecz alleged was a “Ponzi scheme.” Among the claims Oravecz alleged against New York Life were negligent misrepresentation, failure to

McDonald v. Antelope Valley Cmty. Coll. Dist., 45 Cal. 4th 88 (2008)

Plaintiffs in this case alleged racial harassment, discrimination and retaliation against the District. The trial court granted summary judgment to the employer with regard to Sylvia Brown’s claims on the ground they were barred by the statute of limitations applicable to claims asserted under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”).

Cypress Semiconductor Corp. v. Superior Court, 163 Cal. App. 4th 575 (2008)

The trade secret owner in this case, Silvaco Data Systems, develops and licenses electronic design automation software. In late 1998, a former Silvaco employee, working for Circuit Systems, Inc. (“CSI”), incorporated Silvaco’s “SmartSpice” trade secrets into CSI’s product, “DynaSpice.” Silvaco sued the employee as well as CSI and in 2003 entered into a