Labor & Employment

Both parties supply temporary nurses to hospitals.  Plaintiff entered into a contract with defendant to supply nurses when defendant couldn't fill orders from its own supply of nurses.  The contract contained a clause prohibiting plaintiff from soliciting defendant's employee-nurses to work for plaintiff rather than defendant.  This decision holds that the non-solicitation clause is an ancillary restraint to be analyzed… Read More

The FAA applies to an arbitration clause in an employment agreement involved in interstate commerce and preempts California Labor Code 229 which forbids arbitration of wage and hour claims.  The parties did not elect out of FAA preemption by a choice of law clause in the employment contract generally choosing California law, but not specifically choosing California law regarding arbitration… Read More

Burlington forced Gallano, one of its check-out clerks, to sign a promissory note for losses on return of items by customers or mistaken pricing of goods due to other workers' errors in affixing price tags.  This opinion holds that Gallano stated viable claims against Burlington for violation of Lab. Code 2802 (which requires the employer to reimburse employees for expenses… Read More

Part of California's Prevailing Wage Law, Labor Code 1772 provides:  "Workers employed by contractors or subcontractors in the execution of any contract for public work are deemed to be employed upon public work."  Delving into the section's history and rejecting Court of Appeal decisions giving it a different interpretation, this decision holds that the section merely makes it clear that… Read More

California's Prevailing Wage Law (Lab. Code 1720(a)(1)) defines a "public work" as including construction and installation.  This decision holds that while the statute does not expressly say so, the prior common meaning of a public work--that is a physical installation on real property--provides a context for the statutory definition, confining its broad undefined terms, construction and installation, to tasks performed… Read More

Although the trial court did not abuse its discretion in excluding from evidence the digitized spreadsheets of meal break and rounding of work hours for lack of a proper foundation, it did abuse its discretion in excluding an expert witness' opinion based on those digitized spreadsheets.  An expert may rely on inadmissible evidence if based on information that is reliable… Read More

Following Kim v. Reins Internat. California, Inc. (2020) 9 Cal.5th 73, this decision holds that the plaintiff in this case had standing to pursue a PAGA suit against her employer because she alleged she had been a victim of one of the alleged violations of the Labor Code by her employer.  She did not lose her standing to sue under… Read More

This decision holds that an employer cannot be penalized under Lab. Code 1197.1(b) for failure to pay minimum wages if it has paid at least minimum wages to the employees on or before their scheduled pay day, even if it violates Lab. Code 201, 202 by failing to pay an employee who is fired immediately on termination or one who… Read More

In hospital peer review committee proceedings, a person hired by a hospital to serve as a hearing officer may be disqualified for financial bias under Business and Professions Code section 809.2(b), on grounds that the officer has an incentive to favor the hospital in order to increase the chances of receiving future appointments.  Under the statute, a hearing officer is… Read More

This decision affirms denial of the employer-defendant's motion to compel arbitration under an agreement that delegated arbitrability questions to the arbitrator.  The arbitration agreement and its delegation clause were both unconscionable for the same reasons.  Procedurally, the agreement was presented as an adhesion contract that employees had to sign to retain employment.  Also the agreement was nine pages of 10… Read More

A defendant may be held liable for negligent entrustment of a vehicle and negligent hiring of the employee who drives it if the employer fails to make a reasonable effort to determine whether the employee has a valid driver's license before allowing him to drive the vehicle.  See Veh. Code 14604, 14606(a).) Read More

Following Esparza v. KS Industries, L.P. (2017) 13 Cal.App.5th 1228, this decision holds that an employee cannot be compelled under a predispute arbitration clause to arbitrate a PAGA claim.  The FAA does not preempt this rule.  The employer failed to show that the employee who filed the suit was employed under a collective bargaining agreement so the LMRA  301 did… Read More

The district court correctly compelled arbitration in this wage-and-hour misclassification suit by a Massachusetts Uber driver.  Even assuming Massachusetts would follow McGill v. Citibank, N.A. (2017) 2 Cal.5th 945, plaintiff did not seek a public injunction with McGill's meaning.  Instead, plaintiff sought only an injunction that would benefit himself and other Uber drivers, but not the general public, by requiring… Read More

The trial court correctly compelled arbitration of this Massachusetts Uber driver's wage and hour class action, based on alleged misclassification of Uber drivers as independent contractors.  For purposes of determining whether the plaintiff was a worker in interstate commerce, exempt from the FAA under 9 USC 2, the court properly considered the class of all Uber drivers nationwide, not just… Read More

A hospital peer review proceeding to discipline a staff physician is an official proceeding.  Statements made at the peer review proceeding are protected speech under CCP 425.16(e).  If the plaintiff doctor cannot show a probability of success on the merits of claims based on those statements, the claims must be stricken, but the doctor can still introduce the statements as… Read More

After the Court of Appeal decided in Hollingsworth v. Superior Court (2019) 37 Cal.App.5th 927 that the trial court, having first acquired jurisdiction, should decide whether the Workers Compensation Appeals Board had exclusive jurisdiction over this worker's injury suit--a question that turned on whether the employer had workers compensation insurance coverage at the time plaintiff was injured.  The plaintiff had… Read More

The statute of limitations on a claim of quid pro quo sexual harassment starts running only when the employee knows or reasonably should know of the employer's decision not to promote him or her.  Any period of time during which the employer's decision is not disclosed or otherwise made known to the employee does not count against the limitations period. Read More

Following Kim v. Reins Internat. California, Inc. (2020) 9 Cal.5th 73, this decision holds that the fact that the plaintiff's individual claim is time-barred does not prevent him from bringing a PAGA action to collect civil penalties as to the employer's Labor Code violations as to other employees within the limitations period.  Lab. Code 2699(c) requires only that the plaintiff… Read More

Like several other decisions, this one concludes that later U.S. Supreme Court opinions have not overruled or cast doubt on Iskanian v. CLS Transportation Los Angeles, LLC (2014) 59 Cal.4th 348.  It remains true that an employer cannot compel an employee to arbitrate a PAGA claim and that the FAA does not preempt that rule. Read More

Under Parker Drilling Management Services, Ltd. v. Newton (2019) 139 S.Ct. 1881, state law supplements federal law governing matters on the outer continental shelf only to the extent that there is a gap in federal law.  If federal law already addresses the issue, it excludes state law.  This decision holds that the FLSA addresses the issue of meal and rest… Read More