Kuciemba v. Victory Woodworks, Inc., 14 Cal. 5th 993 (2023); 74 F.4th 1039 (9th Cir. 2023)
The California Supreme Court unanimously ruled that employers are not liable to nonemployees who contract COVID-19 from employee household members who bring the virus home from their workplace, because “[a]n employer does not owe a duty of care under California law to prevent the spread of COVID-19 to
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:
Cardenas v. Horizon Senior Living, Inc., 78 Cal. App. 5th 1065 (2022)
The victim of a felony has an extended statute of limitations in which to bring an action for personal injury or wrongful death against the person convicted of that felony pursuant to Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 340.3 (“Section 340.3”). Mauricio Cardenas (who suffered from dementia) was a resident of Horizon Senior
Wright v. State of Cal., 183 Cal. Rptr. 3d 135 (Cal. Ct. App. 2015)
Monnie Wright was a correctional officer at San Quentin State Prison who lived on the premises of the prison in a unit he rented from the State of California. Wright was injured when he fell in the course of his walk from his home to his place of work at
Gregory v. Cott, 2014 WL 3805478 (Cal. S. Ct. 2014)
Carolyn Gregory was injured while providing in-home care for Lorraine Cott, an Alzheimer’s disease patient. Gregory received workers’ compensation benefits but sued the Cotts for negligence and premises liability and asserted a claim against Lorraine for battery. The trial court granted a defense motion for summary judgment based on the primary assumption of risk
Flores v. Autozone West, Inc., 161 Cal. App. 4th 373 (2008)
Juan Rodriguez Flores was injured by Erwin Gomez, an Autozone employee, when Gomez struck Flores on the head with a steel pipe. Flores sued Autozone for assault and battery based on a respondeat superior theory and for negligent hiring and related torts. The trial court granted Autozone’s motion for summary judgment, but the
Ward v. Circus Circus Casinos, 473 F.3d 994 (9th Cir. 2007)
During a meeting to distribute leaflets and inform other union members of the progress on contract negotiations, one employee, Al Williams, stood on a chair and spoke about union members’ defending their employment rights, which resulted in other participants’ chanting and shouting phrases such as “union, yes” and “we want a contract.” Soon
People v. Pacific Landmark, LLC, 129 Cal. App. 4th 1203 (2005)
The City of Los Angeles brought a red-light abatement action against the operators of a business and the owners of a strip mall where the business (an illegal massage parlor) was located. The trial court issued a preliminary injunction prohibiting the operation of a massage parlor or house of prostitution. Ron Mavaddat contended
Sinatra v. Chico Unified School Dist., 119 Cal. App. 4th 701 (2004)
Charles F. Sinatra, a former assistant principal at Chico High School, alleged wrongful termination in violation of the public policy purportedly embodied in California Education Code § 44922, which permits a school district to allow older, full-time employees to work part time without jeopardizing their retirement and health care benefits. Sinatra alleged