In Bath v. State of California (2024) 105 Cal.App.5th 1184, the Court of Appeal held that a public employee's right to compensation for work already performed matures into an independent contractual right that can be pursued as a breach of contract claim, even if the relevant Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) might bar parallel Labor Code claims.

This decision provides public employees with an independent, contract-based cause of action for unpaid wages that bypasses common statutory defenses like the Portal-to-Portal Act at the pleading stage.

In Mooney v. Fife (9th Cir. 2024) 118 F.4th 1081, the Ninth Circuit reversed the dismissal of a False Claims Act (FCA) retaliation claim, holding that the McDonnell Douglas framework applies, and explicitly rejecting a heightened notice standard for compliance officers or employees whose job involves reporting misconduct. The court affirmed that the employee satisfied the FCA's notice requirement and engaged in protected activity by reporting potential violations.

This decision simplifies the path for compliance officers to bring retaliation claims by confirming they are subject to the same standard of proof as other employees.

In Shah v. Skillz Inc. (2024) 101 Cal.App.5th 285, the Court of Appeal held that lost stock options are not "wages" under the Labor Code, thus barring related tort claims. However, for the surviving breach of contract claim, the court held that damages for lost options may be measured based on "equitable considerations," not just the strict date of breach.

This decision forecloses statutory wage and tort claims for lost options but provides a crucial "equitable" path for plaintiffs to argue for a more favorable valuation date in volatile markets.