Skip to Content (Press Enter)

Skip to Nav (Press Enter)

Labor & Employment

The following summaries are of recent published decisions of the California appellate courts, the Ninth Circuit, and the United States Supreme Court. The summaries are presented without regard to whether Severson & Werson represented a party in the case.

Subscribe to California Appellate Tracker

Thank you for your desire to subscribe to Severson & Werson’s Appellate Tracker Weblog. In order to subscribe, you must provide a valid name and e-mail address. This too will be retained on our server. When you push the “subscribe button”, we will send an electronic mail to the address that you provided asking you to confirm your subscription to our Weblog. By pushing the “subscribe button”, you represent and warrant that you are over the age of 18 years old, are the owner/authorized user of that e-mail address, and are entitled to receive e-mails at that address. Our weblog will retain your name and e-mail address on its server, or the server of its web host. However, we won’t share any of this information with anyone except the Firm’s employees and contractors, except under certain extraordinary circumstances described on our Privacy Policy and (About The Consumer Finance Blog/About the Appellate Tracker Weblog) Page. NOTICE AND AGREEMENT REGARDING E-MAILS AND CALLS/TEXT MESSAGES TO LAND-LINE AND WIRELESS TELEPHONES: By providing your contact information and confirming your subscription in response to the initial e-mail that we send you, you agree to receive e-mail messages from Severson & Werson from time-to-time and understand and agree that such messages are or may be sent by means of automated dialing technology. If you have your email forwarded to other electronic media, including text messages and cellular telephone by way of VoIP, internet, social media, or otherwise, you agree to receive my messages in that way. This may result in charges to you. Your agreement and consent also extend to any other agents, affiliates, or entities to whom our communications are forwarded. You agree that you will notify Severson & Werson in writing if you revoke this agreement and that your revocation will not be effective until you notify Severson & Werson in writing. You understand and agree that you will afford Severson & Werson a reasonable time to unsubscribe you from the website, that the ability to do so depends on Severson & Werson’s press of business and access to the weblog, and that you may still receive one or more emails or communications from weblog until we are able to unsubscribe you.

This decision affirms an order denying an employer's motion to compel arbitration.  Though it found only a minimal degree of procedural unconscionability in that the arbitration agreement was an adhesion contract, it holds that there was a high degree of unconscionability inherent in the arbitration agreement's (a) too restrictive limitation of discovery and (b) non-mutuality.  Discovery was limited to two… Read More

A doctor who was joined a hosptial's staff and was given clinical privileges and performed surgery at the hospital was an independent contractor, not an employee and so could not state a Title VII claim for discrimination in employment against the hospital.  He was on call with the hospital only 5 days a month, and his earnings from the hospital… Read More

Citing Arias v. Superior Court (2009) 46 Cal.4th 969, this decision holds that the settlement and judgment in a prior class action and PAGA suit against the employer alleging the same meal and rest break violations is res judicata of plaintiff's similar PAGA claims.  Even though plaintiff opted out of the class action portion of the earlier case, he could… Read More

Summary judgment for defendant in an age and racial association FEHA discrimination case is affirmed.  The employer provided evidence of a non-discriminatory reason for firing plaintiff.  Plaintiff failed to introduce evidence raising a triable issue of fact that the stated reason was pretextual.  The few alleged comments about plaintiff's age--mostly that she looked much younger than her age--were harmless and… Read More

Professional football players failed to allege a viable negligence claim against the NFL on a theory of negligence per se in distributing prescription pain killers and other drugs to enable injured players to continue competing.  The complaint did not allege facts showing that the NFL directly or indirectly supplied players with drugs or coordinated activities of clubs to do so,… Read More

Under the continuing violations doctrine, an employer is liable for actions that took place outside the limitations period if these actions are sufficiently linked to unlawful conduct that occurred within the limitations period.  Here, Blue Fountain subjected the plaintiff to a continuous course of sexual harassment for more than a decade.  When plaintiff finally quit or was terminated, she sued. … Read More

When Judd, an actress, refused Harvey Weinstein's sexual advances, he bad-mouthed her to the producers of Lord of the Rings, and as a result, she was not hired for that blockbuster film.  Judd stated a viable claim against Weinstein for sexual harassment in violation of Civ. Code 51.9.  The section applies when the parties have one of several relationships specified… Read More

In some respects, the trial court's specification of reasons for granting a new trial, subject to a remittitur, for excessive damages was adequate.  For example, the trial court found that the jury had awarded duplicative damages for two different causes of action.  However, the appellate court held the reason was not supported by the record which showed there was substantial… Read More

In another wrongful termination and defamation case, this decision follows Roby v. McKesson Corp. (2009) 47 Cal.4th 686, in holding that a one-to-one ratio of punitive damages to compensatory damages is the constitutional limit.  Though emotional distress counts as physical injury for purposes of weighing reprehensibility, still plaintiff's emotional distress was not as severe as Roby's.  Also, as in Roby,… Read More

Santa Clara University is not a state actor and so cannot be sued for violation of 42 USC 1983 in firing one of its professors.  It did not become a state actor merely because it isrequired by generally applicable civil rights laws to ameliorate sex or other forms of discrimination. Nor does its receipt of federal and state funds conditioned… Read More

An employee cannot be compelled to arbitrate a PAGA claim even though he signed an arbitration agreement with his employer.  The PAGA claim is a suit by the state which did not agree to arbitrate its claim.  Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis (2018) 138 S.Ct. 1612 does not call this rule into question. Read More

As part of a settlement of a prior wage and hour lawsuit, employee signed an arbitration agreement with employer.  Four years later, plaintiff brought this PAGA claim against employer.  This decision affirms an order denying the employer's motion to compel arbitration.  The State of California is the real party in interest in a PAGA action.  It did not sign the… Read More

An employer's arbitration agreement said that the employer and employee agreed to arbitrate all claims arising from the employment relationship, including class action claims and in the next sentence stated that the employee waived the right to participate in any class action lawsuit.  This decision holds that the agreement unambiguously required the parties to submit class action claims to arbitration. … Read More

Defendant was a signatory as an employer to a collective bargaining agreement with the union which supplied lighting technicians for the TV commercials that defendant produced or that were produced by non-signatory production companies that rented defendant's services and its signatory status to hire the technicians.  This decision reverses a summary judgment in defendant's favor on wage claims by technicians… Read More

Applying Singapore law in accordance with a stock purchase agreement's choice of law clause, this decision holds that the employer did not breach that agreement when it bought back the employee's stock after having fired him.  The agreement provided for an employer buy back at market value of the stock if the employee left employment voluntarily or involuntarily for any… Read More

The trial court erred in compelling arbitration of plaintiff's individual wage and hour claims while retaining jurisdiction over his PAGA claims.  The employer's arbitration clause contained a waiver of "representative" claims--a word broad enough to encompass PAGA claims.  Since PAGA claims cannot be waived, the purported waiver was invalid.  But the arbitration clause also said that the waiver provision was… Read More

Though not called "ministers" and though lacking as rigorous a religious education, teachers at a Catholic or other religious school, whose duties include educating students in the tenets of their religious faith fall within the "ministerial exception," based on the First Amendment, which prevents courts from adjudicating wrongful termination or employment discrimination claims brought by employees of religious institutions whose… Read More

Summary judgment was properly entered for the employer in this wage and hour case.  The employer's expert showed that the employer's time rounding of clock in and out times to the nearest 15 minutes was facially neutral and neutral in practice as well.  Also, the employer disproved the employee's claim that he was denied meal and rest breaks.  Each weekly… Read More

Labor Code 226 applies to wage statements provided by an employer if the employee’s principal place of work is in California.  This test is satisfied if the employee works a majority of the time in California or, for interstate transportation workers whose work is not primarily performed in any single state, if the worker has his or her base of… Read More

An employer must provide wage statements complying with Labor Code section 226 when an employee’s principal place of work is in California, which ordinarily means the employee works a majority of the time in California.  For interstate transportation workers and others who do not spend a majority of their working time in any one state, this test is satisfied when… Read More

1 14 15 16 17 18 25