Skip to Content (Press Enter)

Skip to Nav (Press Enter)

Labor & Employment

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.

Lacy, an employee, filed a complaint with the state Department of Labor claiming her employer, Crestwood, had retaliated against her in violation of Lab. Code 98.7 for complaining about having been assaulted at work.  The DLSE commenced an investigation of the complaint.  Meanwhile, Crestwood filed a petition to compel arbitration under the arbitration clause in Lacy's employment contract.  The trial… Read More

Agreeing with decisions from many other districts, this decision holds that an employer cannot compel arbitration of its worker's PAGA claim, as the claim is by the state, not by the worker who signed the arbitration agreement.  Iskanian v. CLS Transportation (2014) 59 Cal.4th 348 remains good law and was not undermined by Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis (2018) 138… Read More

AB 5 and its amended version Lab. Code 2778 et seq. does not violate the First or Fourteenth Amendments in its application to freelance journalists and others who supply creative content to newspapers, films and other media.  The regulation does not single out those engaged in speech for harsher treatment.  The exemption for some freelancers may not be as broad… Read More

Newspaper delivery carriers sued to recover their mileage expenses under Lab. Code 2082, claiming that defendant had misclassified them as independent contractors, rather than as employees.  On that claim, the control plus test set out in G. Borello & Sons, Inc. v. Department of Industrial Relations (1989) 48 Cal.3d 341 governs whether a worker is an employee.  Newspaper carriers were… Read More

While the ABC test of employee v. independent contractor status applies retroactively, Prop. 22's classification of some gig workers as independent contractors applies only prospectively.  So GrubHub drivers, if employees under the ABC test adopted in Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. Superior Court (2018) 4 Cal.5th 903, are entitled to back wages for the period before Prop. 22's adoption.  The… Read More

Plaintiff adequately exhausted her administrative remedies under the FEHA by filing a complaint with the DFEH that nearly correctly named her employer's dba Hooman Chevrolet (instead of Hooman Chevrolet of Culver City) but got the corporate name of the employer wrong Hooman Enterprises, Inc. (instead of NBA Automotive, Inc.).  The administrative complaint also correctly named the plaintiff's supervisor and other… Read More

AB 51 (Stats. 2019 ch. 711) enacted Lab. Code 432.6 which prohibits employers from requiring employees to agree to arbitration as a condition of employment, and states that it is a condition of employment if the employer requires the employee to opt out or take any affirmative step to avoid agreeing to arbitration.  Over a strong dissent, the majority opinion… Read More

Disagreeing with Curry v. Equilon Enterprises, LLC (2018) 23 Cal.App.5th 289 and Henderson v. Equilon Enterprises, LLC (2019) 40 Cal.App.5th 1111, this decision holds that Equilon is a joint employer, at least for wage and hour regulation purposes, of the employees of the franchisees that run its gas stations.  For wage and hour purposes, joint employment is governed by the… Read More

Following Reid v. Google, Inc. (2010) 50 Cal.4th 512, this decision holds that the trial court erred in excluding "stray remarks" evidence in this employment discrimination case on the basis of age.  The stray remark, by an assistant dean, was that she wanted someone younger (than the applicant, not plaintiff) for a position different than any plaintiff held or applied… Read More

A court has inherent authority to ensure that PAGA claims can be fairly and efficiently tried and, if necessary, may strike claims that cannot be rendered manageable. As a matter of due process, defendants are entitled to a fair opportunity to litigate available affirmative defenses, and a court’s manageability assessment should account for them.  Here, the PAGA claim was based… Read More

Generally, a person hiring an independent contractor to perform work is  not liable for injuries suffered by the contractor's employees in performing that work under the Privette doctrine.  There are two exceptions to this rule.  The Kinsman exception which holds a hirer liable if it is a landowner and fails to disclose some tatent dangerous condition of the property to… Read More

Applying Martinez v. Combs (2010) 49 Cal.4th 35 regarding the definition of employer under IWC orders, this decision affirms a summary judgment finding that a bail bond surety company is not the employer of bail bondsmen's fugitive recovery personnel.  The surety company did not hire, fire or exercise control over those personnel.  The surety company's contracts with the bail bondsmen… Read More

Employment, Race/Ethnicity Discrimination, Unconscious Discrimination, Aversive Racism, 2, 8 This decision holds that race discrimination need not be consciously motivated by race in order to violate Title VII.  Unconscious application of racial stereotypes is enough to violate the statute.  However, expert testimony regarding such unconscious application of racial stereotypes does not prove race discrimination as a matter of law.  The… Read More

Labor Code 206 and 206.5 require an employer to pay an employee all wages the employer concedes are due without condition and without any release of the employee's disputed claims, if any, to other wages.  Here, the employer conceded it owed plaintiff a bonus, but before paying it sent the plaintiff a 998 offer to settle all wage claims.  Held,… Read More

An employer that gives preferential treatment toward a supervisor’s sexual or romantic partner does not thereby discriminate on the basis of sex against other employees of the same sex as the paramour because it doesn't satisfy Bostock v. Clayton County (2020) 140 S. Ct. 1731's test--would employer have acted differently if employee was of the opposite sex.  As used in… Read More

Romero drove a truck for defendant employer entirely within the boundaries of California, but he delivered goods that had been shipped by interstate transportation.  Therefore, was a worker engaged in interstate commerce to whose contract of employment the FAA does not apply.  9 U.S.C. 1.  The FAA's exemption of employment contracts of workers in interstate commerce is not waivable.  So… Read More

1 7 8 9 10 11 24