California Dep’t of Corr. & Rehab. v. WCAB, 2023 WL 5198517 (Cal. Ct. App. 2023)

Under the Workers’ Compensation Act, if a worker is injured because of the employer’s serious and willful misconduct, the “compensation” the worker is entitled to receive increases by one half.  The statute defining “compensation” limits the term to benefits or payments provided by Division 4 of the Labor Code.  

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:

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:

Johnson v. WinCo Foods, LLC, 2022 WL 2112792 (9th Cir. 2022)

Alfred Johnson brought this class action against WinCo, seeking compensation as an “employee” for the time and expense of taking a drug test as a successful applicant for employment. Plaintiffs argued that because the drug tests were administered under the control of the employer, they qualified as “employees” under California law. The district

People ex rel. Alzayat v. Hebb, 18 Cal. App. 5th 801 (2017)

Mahmoud Alzayat filed this qui tam action against his employer (Sunline Transit Agency) and his supervisor (Gerald Hebb), alleging a violation of the Insurance Frauds Prevention Act (“IFPA”) based upon allegedly false statements that Hebb made in an incident report submitted in response to Alzayat’s workers’ compensation claim and in a

The California Chamber of Commerce has just released its annual list of “job killer” bills that have been proposed in the California Legislature. This year’s list identifies 32 proposed laws, including six new “Costly Workplace Mandates.”

Chamber President and CEO Allan Zaremberg cautioned against “increase[d] uncertainty for employers and investors and . . . higher costs of doing business” while employers already face “higher health care premiums, higher workers’ compensation premiums, increased unemployment insurance taxes, and general tax increases.”

Dutra v. Mercy Med. Ctr. Mt. Shasta, 209 Cal. App. 4th 750 (2012)

Michelle Dutra sued Mercy Medical Center for wrongful termination in violation of public policy based upon Cal. Labor Code § 132a (prohibiting discrimination against an employee who has filed a workers’ compensation claim). After a jury was selected, the trial court granted Mercy’s motion to dismiss on the ground that the

LeFiell Mfg. Co. v. Superior Court, 2012 WL 3570743 (Cal. S. Ct. 2012)

O’Neil Watrous and his wife Nidia filed a civil action against LeFiell Manufacturing for injuries O’Neil suffered while he was operating a swaging machine at work. The swaging machine is a “power press machine” within the meaning of Cal. Labor Code § 4558 – an injury from which provides an exception

Ruiz v. Affinity Logistics Corp., 667 F.3d 1318 (9th Cir. 2012)

Fernando Ruiz and similarly situated drivers filed a class action against Affinity alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and California law for failure to pay overtime, failure to pay wages, improper charges for workers’ compensation insurance and unfair business practices. To work for Affinity, the drivers had to enter into an

Hodge v. Aon Ins. Servs., 192 Cal. App. 4th 1361 (2011)

Plaintiffs in this case are claims adjusters employed by a third party administrator (Cambridge Integrated Services Group, Inc.). Depending on the entity with which it contracts and the terms of the contract, Cambridge adjusts general liability, vehicle-related and workers’ compensation claims. In their claim alleging violation of the Unfair Competition Law, plaintiffs alleged