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.

While a police department could not legally discriminate against its employee police officers based on their ethnicity, it could legally take adverse employment action against them based on the race of the man they shot.   Read More

The Ninth Circuit rejects the Department of Labor’s informal interpretation of the dual job limitation on tip credit against the Fair Labor Standards Act’s minimum wage; "two jobs" is determined by occupation, not individual tasks.   Read More

A collective bargaining agreement explicitly requires arbitration of wage and hour claims by referencing a wage order; so long as a Private Attorney General Act claim survives, decertification of a class is not immediately appealable. Read More

Unionized prison guards’ pay is governed by the union’s memorandum of understanding, which was passed as state legislation, not general state wage and hour laws; but those general laws do apply to non-unionized prison workers.   Read More

The Fair Employment and Housing Act’s one year statute of limitations starts to run from the date of termination of employment of a faculty member, rather than the earlier date on which he was denied tenure for allegedly discriminatory reasons.   Read More

The trial court improperly granted summary judgment to employer defendant on employee plaintiff's claim of FEHA-prohibited retaliation for supporting a co-worker's complaint of sex discrimination, after she provided sufficient evidence of (1) adverse employment actions and (2) retaliatory motive.   Read More

Suits under the Private Attorney Act are unlike class actions in that plaintiffs cannot belatedly add new plaintiffs to carry on the suit in place of the original named plaintiffs, if it turns out the original plaintiffs’ claims fail.   Read More

Claims for statutory damages or penalties payable to individual employees are arbitrable; only Private Attorney General Act claims for civil penalties payable to the state are not arbitrable.   Read More

In a Private Attorney General Act suit, the plaintiff is entitled, as a matter of course, to discovery of identification information of all employees affected by the employer’s alleged violations of wage and hour laws.   Read More

When an employer's policy states that an employee does not begin to earn vacation pay until after a full year's employment, the employer does not owe an employee any vacation pay if employment is terminated less than a year after the date of initial employment.   Read More

A foreign national who was invited to the US to work for defendant was not an "intern" or "trainee" during the 11 months he worked before securing a green card, because the work he did consisted of typical work tasks rather than education; so he was entitled to minimum wages under both federal and state law during this period.    Read More

Trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying class certification in this suit for overtime compensation by claims examiners, since plaintiff had not shown that it could prove, by common evidence, that all of the claims examiners in the proposed class actually worked overtime; hence there was no preponderance of common issues.   Read More

Newspaper home delivery carriers were properly found to be employees, covered by Labor Code wage, hour, and expense reimbursement provisions, not independent contractors.  Read More

District court erred in dismissing plaintiff’s employment discrimination suit even though it had become moot, since plaintiff could still receive nominal damages and have his dignity interest vindicated even though he no longer worked for employer.  Read More

Employee’s introduction of evidence of discriminatory remarks by an upper-level supervisor should have enabled him to survive summary judgment on his claim for discriminatory termination due to his sexual orientation, even though employer also introduced evidence of a non-pretextual non-discriminatory motive as well; mixed motives do not absolve the employer.  Read More

An employee may sue his employer's outside counsel for conspiring with Immigration & Customs Enforcement to have him deported as an unregistered alien in retaliation for his having filed suit against the employer alleging a violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.  Read More

The federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act applies to all state and local government agencies without regard to the number of workers they employ, though it applies to private employers only if they have 20 or more workers.  Read More

An EEOC administrative subpoena for names, addresses and phone numbers of co-workers should have been enforced as the information was relevant to the charge the EEOC was investigating, allowing the EEOC to contact co-workers to weigh whether the employer’s test was discriminatory.  Read More

1 19 20 21 22 23 25