In Gessele v. Jack in the Box Inc. (9th Cir. 2025) 160 F.4th 1011, the Ninth Circuit reversed a judgment regarding wage deductions, holding that the district court erred by finding the employer's failure to update workers' compensation withholding rates was "willful" without evidence of intentional wrongdoing. The court also held that statutory penalty wages totaling nearly 400 times the actual damages were constitutionally excessive and remanded for a proportionality review. Additionally, the court reversed the decertification of a class regarding shoe deductions, ruling that deductions are only lawful if for the "ultimate benefit" of the employee; here, a jury could find the employer overcharged workers to obtain vendor rebates.

This decision significantly limits the scope of "willfulness" for administrative payroll errors while reviving strict scrutiny on employer-mandated purchase programs.

In Carroll v. City and County of San Francisco (2025) 115 Cal.App.5th 1192, the Court of Appeal held that a public pension plan's use of imputed service years to calculate disability benefits was motivated by pension status (years of credited service), not age, and therefore did not constitute age discrimination under FEHA. Affirming a judgment for the city, the court relied on Kentucky Retirement Systems v. EEOC (2008) 554 U.S. 135 to rule that the plan's terms were facially neutral.

This decision confirms that pension formulas tied to service eligibility are generally lawful under FEHA, even if they correlate with age, and applies the federal Kentucky Retirement Systems standard to California state law claims.

In Baker v. San Mateo County Employees Retirement Assn. (2025) 114 Cal.App.5th 81, the Court of Appeal held that "regular compensation" under CERL (Gov. Code § 31724) refers to an employee's regular salary or full wages, not the pay tied to a specific job position. The court affirmed a disability retirement effective date based on the employee's return to a different job that paid the same rate, following Katosh v. Sonoma County Employees’ Retirement Association (2008) 163 Cal. App.4th 56.

This decision clarifies that the statutory clock for disability retirement calculations is triggered by the employee's pay rate, preventing employees from challenging their retirement date simply because they were reassigned to a different role with equal pay.

In Platt v. Sodexo, S.A. (9th Cir. 2025) 148 F.4th 709, the Ninth Circuit held that an employee's continued participation in an ERISA plan does not constitute consent to a unilaterally added arbitration provision for their individual claims. However, for fiduciary duty claims on behalf of the Plan (§ 502 (a)(2)), the court held the Plan itself is the consenting party. Despite finding the Plan did consent via an amendment clause, the court still found the agreement unenforceable because its representative action waiver violated the effective vindication doctrine by preventing the plaintiff from seeking statutory, plan-wide relief under § 409 (a).

This decision protects ERISA plaintiffs on two fronts, requiring affirmative consent for individual claims and invalidating representative action waivers that attempt to bar plan-wide fiduciary duty claims.

In Stanley v. City of Sanford (2025) 606 U.S. 46, the U.S. Supreme Court held 8-1 that retirees are not "qualified individuals" protected by Title I of the ADA (42 U.S.C. § 12112 (a)). Affirming the dismissal of a disabled retiree's benefits claim, the Court reasoned that the statute unambiguously refers to current employees or job applicants, not former employees.

This decision resolves a major circuit split and forecloses ADA Title I claims brought by individuals who are already retired. However, the Court expressly left unresolved whether a plaintiff could sue by properly alleging that (1) they were disabled while still employed and (2) the discriminatory benefits policy impacted them during that time.

In Serrano v. Public Employees' Retirement System (2025) 109 Cal.App.5th 96, the Court of Appeal held that the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act (MMBA) does not guarantee the pensionability of pay additives received during union leave. The court clarified that while Gov. Code § 3505.4 requires an employer to continue pay, pensionability is governed exclusively by the Public Employees' Retirement Law (PERL). Pay additives must therefore independently satisfy PERL's definition of "compensation earnable" (Gov. Code § 20636).

This decision severs the link between the MMBA's pay continuation mandate and pension calculations, confirming that pay additives received during union leave are not pensionable unless they separately meet PERL's strict requirements.

In Lowry v. Port San Luis Harbor Dist. (2025) 109 Cal.App.5th 56, the Court of Appeal held that an employer's denial of a disability retirement application is not an "adverse employment action" actionable under FEHA. The court also affirmed summary judgment on the alternative ground that the plaintiff was not a "qualified individual" under FEHA because he concededly could not perform his essential job duties.

This decision reinforces that the exclusive remedy to challenge a retirement denial is the administrative writ process, not a FEHA discrimination lawsuit.

In Sandhu v. Bd. of Admin. of CalPERS (2025) 108 Cal.App.5th 1048, the Court of Appeal held that a CalPERS retiree working for a private contractor was a common law employee of the public agencies he was assigned to, thus violating CalPERS post-retirement work rules. Applying the Borello "control of details" test, the court found a co-employment relationship.

This decision confirms that contractual language disclaiming an employment relationship is immaterial and that courts will look past such formalities to the realities of control when determining co-employment status in the CalPERS context.

In Miller v. California Dept. of Corrections and Rehabilitation (2024) 105 Cal.App.5th 261, the Court of Appeal affirmed summary judgment against a FEHA disability plaintiff, holding that an employee cannot sustain a disability discrimination claim if they cannot perform essential job functions even with accommodations, and that an employer's refusal to file for disability retirement is not a "failure to accommodate" under FEHA.

This decision confirms the burden on FEHA plaintiffs to prove the objective existence of an effective accommodation and clarifies that the statute cannot be used to compel an employer to initiate the retirement process.

In Musquiz v. U.S. Railroad Retirement Board (9th Cir. 2024) 106 F.4th 881, the Ninth Circuit split liability for an annuity overpayment, holding that while the employee was "at fault" for the initial period where he failed to report higher income, he was "without fault" for all overpayments made after the RRB was notified of his correct income but continued to overpay him.

This decision signals that the RRB cannot knowingly continue its own error and then seek full recovery from an annuitant, especially when equitable factors like the annuitant's age, health, and finances weigh against repayment.

In Bafford et al. v. Administrative Committee of the Northrop Grumman Pension Plan (9th Cir. 2024) 101 F.4th 641, the Ninth Circuit held that a "substantially inaccurate" pension benefit statement violates ERISA’s disclosure requirements, and that online inquiries qualify as "written requests" under the statute. The court revived the plaintiffs' claim for statutory penalties (29 U.S.C. § 1132(c)(1)), clarifying that such penalties do not require a finding of bad faith.

This decision exposes plan administrators to penalties for the content and accuracy of their disclosures, not just their failure to provide them, even if the error was an honest mistake.

In Ventura County Employees' Retirement Assn. v. Criminal Justice Attorneys Assn. of Ventura County (2024) 98 Cal.App.5th 1119, the Court of Appeal excluded excess leave cashouts from PEPRA pension calculations by treating the Supreme Court's extensive analysis in Alameda County Deputy Sheriff’s Assn. v. Alameda County Employees’ Retirement Assn. (2020) 9 Cal.5th 1032 as binding.

This decision reinforces PEPRA's anti-spiking goals and serves as a sharp reminder that "well-reasoned dicta" from the California Supreme Court is functionally binding.