Appellate Summaries

Ninth Circuit rules group of corporate jet pilots exempt from overtime: Kennedy v. Las Vegas Sands Corp

/ Wage and Hour

In Kennedy v. Las Vegas Sands Corp (9th Cir. 2024) 110 F.4th 1136, the Ninth Circuit held that corporate jet pilots are exempt from FLSA overtime, finding their duties involve significant mental complexity and specialized knowledge that satisfy the professional exemption. The court also affirmed that the pilots’ on-call time was not compensable “time worked,” finding that the pilots were sufficiently free to engage in personal activities.

This decision confirms the professional exemption’s applicability to pilots and upholds the Owens standard for analyzing the compensability of flexible on-call arrangements.

Ninth Circuit rules group of corporate jet pilots exempt from overtime: Kennedy v. Las Vegas Sands Corp Read More

California Supreme Court Holds Public Employers Exempt from Labor Code, PAGA Actions: Stone v. Alameda Health System

/ PAGA, Wage and Hour

In Stone v. Alameda Health System (2024) 16 Cal.5th 1040, the California Supreme Court held that public employers are generally exempt from the Labor Code, and thus PAGA, because government entities are excluded from the statutory definition of “employer” (Labor Code § 18). The court found a clear legislative intent to exclude public entities unless a specific provision explicitly includes them, rejecting the sovereign powers doctrine and adopting a broad definition of “municipal corporation.”

This decision definitively shields public sector employers from PAGA liability and most wage and hour claims, confirming they are not subject to the same statutory framework as private employers.

California Supreme Court Holds Public Employers Exempt from Labor Code, PAGA Actions: Stone v. Alameda Health System Read More

California Supreme Court rules coworker’s one-time slur potentially actionable in harassment claim: Bailey v. San Francisco District Attorney’s Office

/ Discrimination, Harassment, Retaliation

In Bailey v. San Francisco District Attorney’s Office (2024) 16 Cal.5th 611, the California Supreme Court reversed summary judgment for an employer, issuing two key holdings: (1) a single racial slur by a coworker (not just a supervisor) can be severe enough to support a FEHA harassment claim under the “totality of the circumstances” test from Harris v. Forklift Systems, Inc. (1993) 510 U.S. 17; and (2) an HR manager’s acts of obstructing an employee’s harassment complaint can constitute an adverse employment action for a retaliation claim under Yanowitz v. L’Oreal USA, Inc. (2005) 36 Cal.4th 1028.

This decision lowers the summary judgment bar for single-incident harassment claims and confirms that actively obstructing an internal complaint is itself an actionable retaliatory harm.

California Supreme Court rules coworker’s one-time slur potentially actionable in harassment claim: Bailey v. San Francisco District Attorney’s Office Read More

California Supreme Court affirms limits on PAGA plaintiff intervention: Turrieta v. Lyft, Inc.

/ Civil Procedure, PAGA

In Turrieta v. Lyft, Inc. (2024) 16 Cal.5th 664, the California Supreme Court held 4-3 that PAGA plaintiffs are not parties to parallel PAGA actions and thus lack intrinsic standing to intervene (CCP § 387(d)), object to, or move to vacate a settlement in a separate case against the same employer.

This decision effectively prioritizes the “first to settle” PAGA action, making it much harder for competing plaintiffs to challenge a potentially inadequate “reverse auction” settlement.

California Supreme Court affirms limits on PAGA plaintiff intervention: Turrieta v. Lyft, Inc. Read More

California Supreme Court rejects challenge to Proposition 22: Castellanos, et al. v. State of California, et al.

/ Independent Contractor Classification

In Castellanos, et al. v. State of California, et al. (2024) 16 Cal.5th 588, the California Supreme Court upheld Proposition 22 against a key constitutional challenge, ruling that its workers’ compensation provision (Bus. & Prof. Code § 7451) is valid. The court held that the Legislature’s “plenary power” over workers’ compensation is not exclusive and does not prevent the people from legislating on the same subject through the initiative process.

By limiting its holding to § 7451 and reserving judgment on other provisions, the court handed a major victory to app-based driver companies, ensuring Prop 22 survives while leaving the door open for future, narrower challenges.

California Supreme Court rejects challenge to Proposition 22: Castellanos, et al. v. State of California, et al. Read More

Ninth Circuit orders dismissal of nonconvicted inmates’ Labor Code claims: Ruelas v. County of Alameda et al.

/ Wage and Hour

In Ruelas v. County of Alameda et al. (9th Cir. 2024) 108 F.4th 1208, the Ninth Circuit formally adopted the California Supreme Court’s recent answer to its certified question (issued Apr. 22, 2024), holding that nonconvicted county inmates are not entitled to Labor Code protections, even when working for a private contractor.

This order procedurally finalizes the California Supreme Court’s dispositive ruling, confirming that pretrial detainees are exempt from state minimum wage law.

Ninth Circuit orders dismissal of nonconvicted inmates’ Labor Code claims: Ruelas v. County of Alameda et al. Read More

Ninth Circuit clarifies standards for evidence in hostile workplace environment claims: Okonowsky v. Garland

/ Discrimination, Harassment

In Okonowsky v. Garland (9th Cir. 2024) 109 F.4th 1166, the Ninth Circuit held that Title VII hostile work environment (HWE) claims are not limited to the physical workplace, ruling that offsite conduct (like a supervisor’s social media posts) and non-sexual retaliatory conduct must be considered in the “totality of the circumstances” (citing Galdamez v. Potter (9th Cir. 2005) 415 F.3d 1015).

This decision confirms that the HWE analysis includes online harassment and subsequent non-sexual intimidation, making it harder for employers to dispose of such claims before trial.

Ninth Circuit clarifies standards for evidence in hostile workplace environment claims: Okonowsky v. Garland Read More

Ninth Circuit rules temporal proximity, supervisor awareness insufficient to show Title VII pretext: Kama v. Mayorkas

/ Retaliation

In Kama v. Mayorkas (9th Cir. 2024) 107 F.4th 1054, the Ninth Circuit held that temporal proximity (56 days) between an employee’s EEO complaint and their termination, even coupled with supervisor awareness, was insufficient to show pretext for Title VII retaliation. The court affirmed summary judgment, holding that temporal proximity alone rarely suffices, particularly where the employer has a documented, intervening, and non-retaliatory reason for the termination (here, the employee’s refusal to cooperate with a misconduct investigation).

This decision reinforces that a close timeline is not a substitute for evidence of actual retaliatory animus, especially when the employee’s own actions break the causal chain.

Ninth Circuit rules temporal proximity, supervisor awareness insufficient to show Title VII pretext: Kama v. Mayorkas Read More

9th Circuit rules work practice apprentice at Zen Buddhist temple subject to ministerial exemption: Behrend v. San Francisco Zen Center, Inc.

/ Discrimination

In Behrend v. San Francisco Zen Center, Inc. (9th Cir. 2024) 108 F.4th 765, the Ninth Circuit held that the ministerial exception barred an ADA claim brought by a “work practice apprentice” at a Zen Buddhist temple. Following Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church & Sch. v. EEOC (2012) 565 U.S. 171, the court ruled the exception applied because the plaintiff performed “vital religious duties,” such as assisting with rituals and participating in meditation, even though his other work was mostly menial.

This decision confirms a broad application of the ministerial exception, focusing on the religious function of the employee rather than their formal title or the secular nature of their other tasks.

9th Circuit rules work practice apprentice at Zen Buddhist temple subject to ministerial exemption: Behrend v. San Francisco Zen Center, Inc. Read More

Ninth Circuit affirms FLSA de minimis rule and employer burden: Cadena v. Customer Connexx LLC

/ Wage and Hour

In Cadena v. Customer Connexx LLC (9th Cir. 2024)107 F.4th 902, the Ninth Circuit held that the de minimis doctrine remains a valid defense to FLSA overtime claims after Sandifer v. U.S. Steel Corp. (2014) 571 U.S. 220, but confirmed that the employer bears the burden of proving the uncompensated time is de minimis. Reversing summary judgment for the employer for a second time, the court found triable issues of fact as to whether time spent booting up computers was de minimis.

This decision confirms that while the de minimis defense survives, it is an affirmative defense that presents a high factual bar for employers to clear on summary judgment.

Ninth Circuit affirms FLSA de minimis rule and employer burden: Cadena v. Customer Connexx LLC Read More

9th Circuit rules on RRB overpayment liability: Musquiz v. U.S. Railroad Retirement Board

/ Employee Benefits

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.

9th Circuit rules on RRB overpayment liability: Musquiz v. U.S. Railroad Retirement Board Read More

Ninth Circuit holds employers can use non-medical evidence to contest FMLA leave: Perez v. Barrick Goldstrike Mines, Inc.

/ Discrimination, Employee Leave

In Perez v. Barrick Goldstrike Mines, Inc. (9th Cir. 2024) 105 F.4th 1222, the Ninth Circuit held that an employer may use non-medical evidence, such as private surveillance, to challenge the validity of an FMLA certification and terminate an employee for faking an injury. The court affirmed judgment for the employer, explicitly rejecting the rule from Sims v. Alameda–Contra Costa Transit Dist. (N.D. Cal. 1998) 2 F. Supp. 2d 1253 that a contrary medical opinion is required.

This decision confirms that employers are not limited to a “battle of the experts” and can use evidence of an employee’s actual conduct to rebut a certification they believe is fraudulent.

Ninth Circuit holds employers can use non-medical evidence to contest FMLA leave: Perez v. Barrick Goldstrike Mines, Inc. Read More

Court of Appeal rules pre-2023 egg retrieval and freezing procedures not FEHA-protected: Paleny v. Fireplace Products U.S., Inc.

/ Discrimination, Retaliation

In Paleny v. Fireplace Products U.S., Inc. (2024) 103 Cal.App.5th 199, the Court of Appeal held that an employee’s egg retrieval and freezing procedures were not protected as a “pregnancy-related medical condition” under the pre-2023 version of FEHA. The court affirmed summary judgment for the employer, finding that because the plaintiff was not pregnant and had not identified an underlying related medical condition or disability, her fertility procedures did not qualify as a protected characteristic.

This decision underscores the importance of the recent amendment covering “reproductive health decision-making,” which the court noted the plaintiff failed to argue was retroactive.

Court of Appeal rules pre-2023 egg retrieval and freezing procedures not FEHA-protected: Paleny v. Fireplace Products U.S., Inc. Read More

9th Circuit holds hiring discrimination based on U.S. citizenship prohibited under 42 U.S.C. Section 1981: Rajaram v. Meta Platforms, Inc.

/ Discrimination

In Rajaram v. Meta Platforms, Inc. (9th Cir. 2024) 105 F.4th 1179, the Ninth Circuit held 2-1 that 42 U.S.C. § 1981 prohibits hiring discrimination against U.S. citizens. Reversing a dismissal, the court ruled that § 1981’s guarantee of parity between “all persons” and “citizens” is violated by an alleged practice of favoring noncitizen H-1B visa holders.

This decision creates a significant circuit split by explicitly rejecting the Fifth Circuit’s contrary holding in Chaiffetz v. Robertson Research Holding, Ltd. (5th Cir. 1986) 798 F.2d 731, opening a new front for “reverse-alienage” discrimination claims against employers.

9th Circuit holds hiring discrimination based on U.S. citizenship prohibited under 42 U.S.C. Section 1981: Rajaram v. Meta Platforms, Inc. Read More

Court of Appeal clarifies prime contractor liability for subcontractor Labor Code violations: Lusardi Construction Co v. Dept of Industrial Relations

/ Administrative Law, Wage and Hour

In Lusardi Construction Co v. Dept of Industrial Relations (2024) 102 Cal.App.5th 1329, the Court of Appeal held that under former Labor Code § 1777.7(d), a prime contractor’s actual knowledge of its subcontractor’s apprentice violations (former § 1777.5) was sufficient by itself to establish joint and several liability for penalties. The court affirmed the denial of the prime’s writ petition, finding substantial evidence supported the administrative finding of knowledge and rejecting the argument that knowledge alone was an insufficient basis for liability.

This decision confirms that prime contractors could be held liable for known subcontractor violations under the former public works statutory scheme.

Court of Appeal clarifies prime contractor liability for subcontractor Labor Code violations: Lusardi Construction Co v. Dept of Industrial Relations Read More

Court of Appeal rules no CMIA violation in firing over COVID-19 test refusal: Frayo v. Martin

/ Employee Privacy, Retaliation

In Frayo v. Martin. (2024) 102 Cal.App.5th 1025, the Court of Appeal held that an employer did not violate the CMIA by firing an employee who refused a mandatory COVID-19 test. The court affirmed a demurrer, finding that (1) a request to take a test is not an unlawful request for a medical authorization under § 56.20(b), and (2) § 56.20(c) did not apply because the employer never possessed the plaintiff’s “medical information” since he refused the test.

This decision confirms CMIA governs the handling of possessed data, not the act of requiring a test, and does not protect an employee from termination for refusing the test itself.

Court of Appeal rules no CMIA violation in firing over COVID-19 test refusal: Frayo v. Martin Read More

Court of Appeal holds “aggrieved employees” definition unnecessary for PAGA prefiling: Ibarra v. Chuy Sons Labor, Inc.

/ PAGA

In Ibarra v. Chuy Sons Labor, Inc. (2024) 102 Cal.App.5th 874, the Court of Appeal held that a PAGA prefiling notice (Lab. Code §2699.3) is valid as long as it nonfrivolously alleges other aggrieved employees exist, even if it does not specifically define or identify them. The court reversed a judgment on the pleadings, holding that the scope of the representative group is a matter for discovery, not a pleading requirement for the notice.

This decision lowers the barrier for PAGA notices, preventing employers from defeating claims at the pleading stage based on the notice’s lack of specificity.

Court of Appeal holds “aggrieved employees” definition unnecessary for PAGA prefiling: Ibarra v. Chuy Sons Labor, Inc. Read More

9th Circuit holds unambiguous class exclusion necessary to end American Pipe tolling: DeFries v. Union Pacific Railroad Company

/ Civil Procedure, Class Action

In DeFries v. Union Pacific Railroad Company (9th Cir. 2024) 104 F.4th 1091, the Ninth Circuit held that American Pipe tolling continues for a putative class member unless their exclusion from a revised class definition is “unambiguous.” The court reversed summary judgment for the defendant, finding that a motion by class counsel to narrow the class definition was ambiguous as to whether it excluded the plaintiff.

This decision protects bystander plaintiffs from losing their claims due to unclear class modifications.

9th Circuit holds unambiguous class exclusion necessary to end American Pipe tolling: DeFries v. Union Pacific Railroad Company Read More

Court of Appeal holds “same decision” showing precludes whistleblower plaintiff relief: Ververka v. Department of Veterans Affairs

/ Whistleblower

In Ververka v. Department of Veterans Affairs (2024) 102 Cal.App.5th 162, the Court of Appeal held that an employer’s successful “same decision” defense under Labor Code §1102.6 is a complete bar to all relief for a § 1102.5 whistleblower plaintiff. The court rejected plaintiff’s attempt to import FEHA’s “substantial factor” framework from Harris v. City of Santa Monica (2013) 56 Cal.4th 203, which can allow for declaratory relief and fees.

This decision solidifies that the § 1102.6 framework provides an “all-or-nothing” outcome, making the defense more powerful than its FEHA counterpart.

Court of Appeal holds “same decision” showing precludes whistleblower plaintiff relief: Ververka v. Department of Veterans Affairs Read More

Ninth Circuit rejects FEHA plaintiff’s rehearing bid for insufficient evidence: Hittle v. City of Stockton

/ Discrimination

In Hittle v. City of Stockton (9th Cir. 2024) 101 F.4th 1000, the Ninth Circuit, in denying rehearing, affirmed summary judgment by holding that a FEHA/Title VII plaintiff must produce “specific and substantial” circumstantial evidence to rebut a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for termination.

This decision solidifies the more stringent standard from Coghlan v. American Seafoods Co. (9th Cir. 2005) 413 F.3d 1090 over the more lenient “very little evidence” language from Chuang v. Univ. of Cal. Davis, Bd. of Trs. (9th Cir. 2000) 225 F.3d 1115, making it tougher for such claims to survive summary judgment.

Ninth Circuit rejects FEHA plaintiff’s rehearing bid for insufficient evidence: Hittle v. City of Stockton Read More

Court of Appeal rules on permanence exception to continuing violations doctrine: Hoglund v. Sierra Nevada Memorial-Miners Hospital

/ Attorney's Fees, Discrimination

In Hoglund v. Sierra Nevada Memorial-Miners Hospital (2024) 102 Cal.App.5th 56, the Court of Appeal held that an employer’s “ongoing inaction” in response to harassment complaints does not trigger the permanence exception to FEHA’s continuing violations doctrine. The court ruled that permanence requires a definitive act or communication from the employer (like resolving the issue or communicating a refusal to do so), not just a passive failure to act.

This decision clarifies that employers cannot establish a “permanence” defense—and thus start the statute of limitations clock—simply by ignoring an employee’s complaints over a long period.

Court of Appeal rules on permanence exception to continuing violations doctrine: Hoglund v. Sierra Nevada Memorial-Miners Hospital Read More

9th Circuit Rejects Equal Protection Challenge to A.B. 5: Olson et. al v. State of California

/ Independent Contractor Classification

In Olson et. al v. State of California (9th Cir. 2024) 104 F.4th 66, the Ninth Circuit en banc affirmed the dismissal of an Equal Protection challenge to A.B. 5, holding the law survives rational basis review. The court found that A.B. 5’s complex framework and its distinctions between different types of referral services are rationally related to legitimate state interests, such as addressing worker misclassification.

This decision effectively ends the high-profile constitutional challenge by Uber and Postmates, confirming that the Legislature’s line-drawing in the economic sphere is subject to a highly deferential standard.

9th Circuit Rejects Equal Protection Challenge to A.B. 5: Olson et. al v. State of California Read More

Ninth Circuit holds non-individual PAGA claims remain in court pending arbitration: Diaz v. Macy’s West Stores, Inc.

/ Arbitration Agreements, PAGA

In Diaz v. Macy’s West Stores, Inc. (9th Cir. 2024) 101 F.4th 697, the Ninth Circuit held that when an employee’s individual PAGA claim is compelled to arbitration, their non-individual (representative) PAGA claims are stayed in court, not dismissed. Following the California Supreme Court’s controlling decision in Adolph v. Uber Technologies, Inc. (2023) 14 Cal.5th 1104, the court affirmed that a plaintiff retains standing to pursue the representative claims in court after the individual arbitration is complete.

This decision confirms the Adolph procedure is the rule in the Ninth Circuit, preventing the dismissal of representative PAGA claims when an individual claim is arbitrated.

Ninth Circuit holds non-individual PAGA claims remain in court pending arbitration: Diaz v. Macy’s West Stores, Inc. Read More

9th Circuit holds inaccurate pension statements violate ERISA: Bafford et al. v. Administrative Committee of the Northrop Grumman Pension Plan

/ Employee Benefits

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.

9th Circuit holds inaccurate pension statements violate ERISA: Bafford et al. v. Administrative Committee of the Northrop Grumman Pension Plan Read More

California Supreme Court affirms good faith defense against wage statement penalties: Naranjo v. Spectrum Security Services, Inc.

/ Wage and Hour

In Naranjo v. Spectrum Security Services, Inc. (2024) 15 Cal.5th 1056, the California Supreme Court held that an employer’s good faith, but mistaken, belief that its wage statements were accurate is a valid defense to “knowing and willful” wage statement penalties under Labor Code § 226. Affirming the denial of penalties for the failure to report missed-break premiums, the court reasoned the violation was not “knowing and willful” because the law on whether such premiums were “wages” was unsettled at the time.

This decision aligns the § 226 standard with the good faith defense for waiting time penalties (§ 203), protecting employers from penalties when they misinterpret ambiguous legal requirements.

California Supreme Court affirms good faith defense against wage statement penalties: Naranjo v. Spectrum Security Services, Inc. Read More

Court of Appeal declines to expand Skelly protections: LaMarr v. The Regents of the University of California

/ Administrative Law

In LaMarr v. The Regents of the University of California (2024) 101 Cal.App.5th 671, the Court of Appeal held that an employee is not entitled to a Skelly hearing before voluntarily accepting a demotion to avoid potential (but not yet finalized) disciplinary action. The plaintiff chose a lower-paying position rather than risk termination (which would have triggered Skelly rights).

The court, citing Coleman v. Department of Personnel Administration (1991) 52 Cal.3d 1102, held that due process is not required where an employee “has voluntarily surrendered the property interest” and that requiring a pre-choice hearing would improperly expand Skelly to apply merely when an employer considers an adverse action.

Court of Appeal declines to expand Skelly protections: LaMarr v. The Regents of the University of California Read More

Court of Appeal clarifies PAGA arbitrability delegation requirements: Mondragon v. Sunrun Inc.

/ Arbitration Agreements, PAGA

In Mondragon v. Sunrun Inc. (2024) 101 Cal.App.5th 592, the Court of Appeal held that incorporating AAA rules by reference does not “clearly and unmistakably” delegate arbitrability to an arbitrator for unsophisticated employees. The court also affirmed the denial of a motion to compel, holding that the Viking River rule does not apply when an agreement explicitly carves out all PAGA claims.

This decision confirms that courts decide arbitrability absent exceptionally clear delegation and that employers are bound by their own explicit PAGA carve-outs.

Court of Appeal clarifies PAGA arbitrability delegation requirements: Mondragon v. Sunrun Inc. Read More

California Supreme Court holds nonconvicted county inmates exempt from minimum wage and overtime: Ruelas v. County of Alameda et al.

/ Wage and Hour

In Ruelas v. County of Alameda et al. (2024) 15 Cal.5th 968, the California Supreme Court held that nonconvicted county inmates (pretrial detainees) are not entitled to minimum wage or overtime, even when working for a private contractor in the jail. The court found that Penal Code § 4019.3, which governs inmate labor, applies to all county inmates and exempts them from the Labor Code’s wage provisions.

This decision definitively closes the door on state wage claims for pretrial detainees working in county jails, regardless of whether the work program is run by a public or private entity.

California Supreme Court holds nonconvicted county inmates exempt from minimum wage and overtime: Ruelas v. County of Alameda et al. Read More

Ninth Circuit holds hostile work environment claims assertable under ADA and Rehabilitation Act: Mattioda v. Nelson

/ Discrimination, Harassment

In Mattioda v. Nelson (9th Cir. 2024) 98 F.4th 1164, the Ninth Circuit held that hostile work environment (HWE) claims are cognizable under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. The court noted that such claims are cognizable under the ADA and held they apply “by extension” to the Rehabilitation Act. It then reversed the dismissal of the plaintiff’s HWE claim, finding the district court failed to construe the allegations favorably under Iqbal/Twombly.

This decision formally confirms the viability of disability-based HWE claims under the Rehabilitation Act in the Ninth Circuit.

Ninth Circuit holds hostile work environment claims assertable under ADA and Rehabilitation Act: Mattioda v. Nelson Read More

Court of Appeal holds individual claims not prerequisite for PAGA actions: Balderas v. Fresh Start Harvesting, Inc.

/ PAGA

In Balderas v. Fresh Start Harvesting, Inc. (2024) 101 Cal.App.5th 533, the Court of Appeal held that a plaintiff has standing to bring a representative PAGA action without also pleading a separate “individual” PAGA claim. The court reversed the trial court’s dismissal, finding it improperly relied on Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana (2022) 596 U.S. 639 instead of the controlling standard from Adolph v. Uber Technologies, Inc. (2023) 14 Cal.5th 1104.

This decision reinforces that PAGA standing under Adolph merely requires the plaintiff to be an “aggrieved employee”—one who was employed by the defendant and suffered at least one violation—not to bring a distinct individual cause of action.

Court of Appeal holds individual claims not prerequisite for PAGA actions: Balderas v. Fresh Start Harvesting, Inc. Read More

Court of Appeal rules on FEHA administrative exhaustion requirement: Kuigoua v. Department of Veteran Affairs

/ Discrimination, Retaliation

In Kuigoua v. Department of Veteran Affairs (2024) 101 Cal.App.5th 499, the Court of Appeal held that a FEHA plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies by alleging substantially different facts, individuals, and timeframes at trial than those included in his DFEH/EEOC charge. Citing Guzman v. NBA Automotive, Inc. (2021) 68 Cal.App.5th 1109, 1117, the court affirmed summary judgment, finding the new claims were not “like, or reasonably related to” the original charge, as an investigation would not have uncovered them.

This decision reinforces the “scope of the charge” rule, preventing plaintiffs from using an administrative charge as a mere placeholder for a completely different lawsuit.

Court of Appeal rules on FEHA administrative exhaustion requirement: Kuigoua v. Department of Veteran Affairs Read More

U.S. Supreme Court rejects “significance” standard for Title VII discrimination claims: Muldrow v. City of St. Louis

/ Discrimination

In Muldrow v. City of St. Louis (2024) 601 U.S. 346, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously held that a Title VII discrimination plaintiff must show “some harm” to a “term or condition of employment,” but the harm “need not be significant.” The Court vacated an Eighth Circuit decision that had required a “significant change in working conditions,” stating that this improperly “add[ed] words…to the statute” (2 U. S. C. §2000e–2(a)(1)).

This decision significantly lowers the bar for discrimination claims based on job transfers, schedule changes, or loss of perks, making it much easier for such cases to survive summary judgment.

U.S. Supreme Court rejects “significance” standard for Title VII discrimination claims: Muldrow v. City of St. Louis Read More

 Court of Appeal holds stock options damages not wages, upholds calculation based on “equitable considerations”: Shah v. Skillz Inc.

/ Breach of Contract, Torts, Wage and Hour

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.

 Court of Appeal holds stock options damages not wages, upholds calculation based on “equitable considerations”: Shah v. Skillz Inc. Read More

Court of Appeal upholds retroactive application of EAESPA: Silva v. Medic Ambulance Service, Inc.

/ Wage and Hour

In Silva v. Medic Ambulance Service, Inc. (2024) 101 Cal.App.5th 172, the Court of Appeal affirmed the retroactive application of EAESPA (Lab. Code §880 et seq.), holding its validation of “on-call” ambulance rest breaks constitutionally extinguishes pre-existing claims per the factors in In re Marriage of Bouquet (1976) 16 Cal.3d 583, 592. The court also affirmed $2,000 in sanctions against plaintiff’s counsel for challenging this settled precedent.

This holding solidifies EAESPA’s retroactive effect and serves as a reminder that challenging established appellate holdings is sanctionable.

Court of Appeal upholds retroactive application of EAESPA: Silva v. Medic Ambulance Service, Inc. Read More

Court of Appeal holds Code Civ. Proc. § 1033 (a) not applicable to minimum wage and overtime claims: Gramajo v. Joe’s Pizza on Sunset, Inc.

/ Attorney's Fees, Civil Procedure, Wage and Hour

In Gramajo v. Joe’s Pizza on Sunset, Inc.(2024) 100 Cal.App.5th 1094, the Court of Appeal held that a trial court’s discretion to deny costs for a low recovery under Code of Civil Procedure §1033(a) is preempted by Labor Code §1194(a)’s mandate to award fees and costs to prevailing minimum wage plaintiffs “irrespective of the amount recovered.”

This decision secures a plaintiff’s entitlement to fees in all successful minimum wage cases, shifting the battleground from if fees will be awarded to the reasonableness of the amount sought on remand.

Court of Appeal holds Code Civ. Proc. § 1033 (a) not applicable to minimum wage and overtime claims: Gramajo v. Joe’s Pizza on Sunset, Inc. Read More

California Supreme Court clarifies “hours worked” under Wage Order 16: Huerta v. CSI Electrical Contractors

/ Wage and Hour

In Huerta v. CSI Electrical Contractors(2024) 15 Cal.5th 908, the California Supreme Court held: (1) time spent in mandatory exit security checks is compensable “hours worked”; (2) on-site travel after a security gate is compensable only if the employer’s purpose for the gate is more than just site access; and (3) on-premises meal periods are compensable if employees cannot engage in personal activities.

This decision expands liability for security checks but creates a key factual question: what level of employer control during on-site travel, beyond ordinary rules, is sufficient to render that time compensable?

California Supreme Court clarifies “hours worked” under Wage Order 16: Huerta v. CSI Electrical Contractors Read More

9th circuit affirms extraterritoriality barriers in Canadian whistleblower case: Daramola v. Oracle America, Inc.

/ Whistleblower

In Daramola v. Oracle Am., Inc. (9th Cir. 2024) 92 F.4th 833, the Ninth Circuit held that federal (SOX, Dodd-Frank) and California (Lab. Code §1102.5) whistleblower laws do not apply extraterritorially to a foreign employee working abroad, ruling that accessing U.S. servers does not constitute sufficient domestic conduct.

This decision strongly reinforces the territorial limits of U.S. employment protections, shielding multinational corporations from suits brought by their foreign-based workforce.

9th circuit affirms extraterritoriality barriers in Canadian whistleblower case: Daramola v. Oracle America, Inc. Read More

Court of Appeal rules FEHA plaintiff need not respond to “ineffective” cost memorandum: Neeble-Diamond v. Hotel California by the Sea, LLC

/ Civil Procedure

In Neeble-Diamond v. Hotel California By the Sea, LLC (2024) 99 Cal.App.5th 551, the Court of Appeal held a plaintiff had no duty to respond to a cost memorandum seeking discretionary costs because the defendant failed to file the required noticed motion. The court ruled the procedurally improper cost memo was “ineffective” and a nullity, meaning the plaintiff’s failure to file a motion to tax costs was irrelevant.

This ruling confirms a party need not respond to a procedurally defective cost memorandum seeking discretionary costs.

Court of Appeal rules FEHA plaintiff need not respond to “ineffective” cost memorandum: Neeble-Diamond v. Hotel California by the Sea, LLC Read More

Court of Appeal affirms PEPRA excess leave cashouts exclusion: Ventura County Employees’ Retirement Assn. v. Criminal Justice Attorneys Assn. of Ventura County

/ Employee Benefits

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.

Court of Appeal affirms PEPRA excess leave cashouts exclusion: Ventura County Employees’ Retirement Assn. v. Criminal Justice Attorneys Assn. of Ventura County Read More

California Supreme Court holds PAGA claims not dismissible based on manageability: Estrada v. Royalty Carpet Mills, Inc.

/ PAGA

In Estrada v. Royalty Carpet Mills, Inc. (2024) 15 Cal.5th 582, the California Supreme Court held trial courts lack inherent authority to dismiss PAGA claims for manageability, expressly disapproving Wesson v. Staples the Office Superstore, LLC (2021) 68 Cal.App.5th 746.

This decision removes a primary hurdle for large-scale PAGA actions, forcing defendants to fight complex claims on the merits rather than procedural grounds.

California Supreme Court holds PAGA claims not dismissible based on manageability: Estrada v. Royalty Carpet Mills, Inc. Read More

Scroll to Top