California employers routinely conduct background checks, but it’s crucial to understand your rights regarding these checks. What makes a background check legal versus one that crosses the line? That’s the key question we’ll explore here.
Your Right to Fair Pay in California: A Guide to the Equal Pay Act Read More
California employers routinely conduct background checks, but it’s crucial to understand your rights regarding these checks. What makes a background check legal versus one that crosses the line? That’s the key question we’ll explore here.
Understanding Your Final Paycheck in California: What’s Due and When Read More
In Brown v. City of Inglewood, Cal.5th (Jul. 8, 2025), the California Supreme Court unanimously affirmed that elected city officials are not “employee[s]” under Cal. Lab. Code § 1102.6 subject to the whistleblower protections of § 1102.5.
In Allison v. Dignity Health, Cal.App.5th (Jun. 26, 2025), the Court of Appeal (First Appellate District, Division Four) clarified the criteria for decertification of a class action, particularly concerning what constitutes “new evidence” and the impact of individual issues on class manageability for wage and hour
In Stanley v. City of Sanford, No. 23-997, the United States Supreme Court held 8-1 that retirees are not “qualified individuals” under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), resolving a longstanding circuit split.
In Damiano v. Grants Pass School District No. 7, (9th Cir.) F.3d (Jun. 17, 2025), (Jun. 19, 2025), the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit clarified the evidence needed for plaintiffs to withstand summary judgment on First Amendment, Fourteenth Amendment, and Title VII discrimination claims.
In Palm Springs Promenade, LLC v. Dept. of Industrial Relations, Cal.App.5th (Jun. 17, 2025), the Court of Appeal (Fourth Appellate District, Division One) clarified the definition of a “municipal affair” under the “home rule” provision of Cal. Const., art. XI, § 5(a), holding that a development
In Silva v. Cross Country Healthcare, Inc., Cal.App.5th (Jun. 17, 2025), the Court of Appeal (Second Appellate District, Division Five) held that an arbitration agreement must be read concurrently with an employment agreement under Civ. Code § 1642. If their combined effect creates substantively unconscionable imbalances,
In Velarde v. Monroe Operations, LLC, Cal.App.5th (Jun. 10, 2025), the Court of Appeal (Fourth Appellate District, Division Three) held that strong evidence of procedural unconscionability coupled with misrepresentations regarding the substance of an arbitration agreement rendered the entire agreement unenforceable.
California employers routinely conduct background checks, but it’s crucial to understand your rights regarding these checks. What makes a background check legal versus one that crosses the line? That’s the key question we’ll explore here.
Understanding California Pregnancy, Maternity, Paternity and Bonding Leave Laws Read More
In Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services, No. 22-1039, the United States Supreme Court unanimously rejected a heightened “background circumstances” evidentiary standard for members of majority groups (often termed “reverse discrimination” plaintiffs) seeking to establish a prima facie case under Title VII.
In Rose v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Cal.App.5th (May 16, 2025), the Court of Appeal First Appellate District, Division Two) held that the Labor and Workforce Development Agency (LWDA) is not liable for costs in a PAGA action unless it actively participates in the litigation.
In Reyes v. Hi-Grade Materials Co., Cal.App.5th (Apr. 24, 2025), (May 1, 2025), the Court of Appeal (Fourth Appellate District, Division One) held that an interlocutory order denying class certification is not retroactively appealable under the death knell doctrine when the plaintiff later voluntarily dismisses their
In Williams v. Alacrity Solutions Group, Cal.App.5th (Apr. 24, 2025), the Court of Appeal (Second Appellate District, Division Five) affirmed that representative PAGA claims must include an individual component subject to a one year statute of limitations, which applies to violations suffered by the representative plaintiff,
In Bradsbery v. Vicar Operating, Inc., Cal.App.5th (Apr. 23, 2025), the Court of Appeal (Second Appellate District, Division Seven) held that revocable, prospective waivers of meal breaks for shifts between 5-6 hours are legally valid.
California employers routinely conduct background checks, but it’s crucial to understand your rights regarding these checks. What makes a background check legal versus one that crosses the line? That’s the key question we’ll explore here.
Employment Background Checks in California: What’s Legal & What’s Not Read More
In Ford v. The Silver F, Inc., Cal.App.5th (Apr. 10, 2025), the Court of Appeal (Third Appellate District) addressed the definition of “representative” in the context of a PAGA arbitration carve-out.
Sometimes employees need to pay out of pocket for their employer’s business expenses. But that doesn’t mean you should be left footing the bill. The good news for California workers is that the state has strong laws to protect you. This article explains when you’re entitled to reimbursements and what to do if your employer isn’t paying you back.
A Guide to Expense Reimbursement for California Employees Read More
In Krug v. Board of Trustees of the California State University, Cal.App.5th (Apr. 3, 2025), the Court of Appeal (Second Appellate District, Division One) held that Lab. Code § 2802 does not require public employers to reimburse employees for work-related expenses.
Failure to pay correct overtime affects all kinds of workers across all different industries. If your employer illegally withholds overtime pay, you can likely recover the wages you’re owed plus other potential penalties. This guide will help you understand when you’re entitled to overtime, and what to do if your employer doesn’t pay you properly.
California Labor Laws for Overtime and Double Time: An In-Depth Look Read More
California’s labor laws protect workers’ rights and aim to ensure fair pay and promote healthy workplaces. Unfortunately, wage theft still occurs. This article will help you understand California’s key wage and hour laws, including minimum wage, overtime, and rest and meal break laws. Once you understand your rights, you can take better action to defend them.
Pay Laws and Wage Claims in California: Understanding Your Rights Read More
In Cahill v. Nike, Inc., (9th Cir.) F.3d (Mar. 19, 2025), the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that a district court has the authority to order an intervenor to return or destroy confidential documents inadvertently disclosed during discovery.
In Perez v. Rose Hills Company, (9th Cir.) F.3d (Mar. 17, 2025), the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit clarified the amount in controversy requirement of the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (CAFA).
Employers can now monitor workers, investigate applicants, and screen current employees more easily than before. Fortunately, California provides strong employee privacy protections. This guide will help you understand when an employer’s actions might cross the legal line, and what you can do to protect your rights.
California Privacy Laws in the Workplace: Understanding Your Rights Read More
In Mandell-Brown v. Novo Nordisk Inc., Cal.App.5th (Mar. 10, 2025), the Court of Appeal (Second Appellate District, Division Five) clarified the discretion of trial courts in granting summary judgment motions when no opposition is filed.
Understanding the difference between employee and independent contractor status is crucial. It impacts your rights, your pay, your benefits, and your taxes. This article explains these important legal distinctions. We’ll help you determine if you’re potentially misclassified as an independent contractor, and how to fight back against your employer.
California Independent Contractor Laws (and How to Know if You’re Misclassified) Read More
In Moniz v. Adecco USA, Inc., Cal.App.5th (Mar. 4, 2025), the Court of Appeal (First Appellate District, Division Four) held that PAGA does not grant a plaintiff with overlapping claims the right to intervene in or move to vacate another’s PAGA settlement, closely following Turrieta
Reporting misconduct isn’t always just an ethical choice. Certain situations might involve a legal duty to report as well. Fortunately, strong laws offer protection for whistleblowers. This guide will cover what qualifies as whistleblower activity and how to protect yourself from employer retaliation.
How Do California’s Whistleblower Laws Protect Employees? Read More
In Serrano v. Public Employees’ Retirement System, Cal.App.5th (Feb. 28, 2025), the Court of Appeal (Third Appellate District) held that the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act (Cal. Gov. Code §§ 3500 et seq.) does not guarantee that additive pay received during union leave is pensionable.
In Lowry v. Port San Luis Harbor Dist., Cal.App.5th (Feb. 28, 2025), the Court of Appeal (Second Appellate District, Division Six) held that denial of disability retirement benefits is not an adverse employment action under FEHA.
In Rodriguez v. Packers Sanitation Services, Cal.App.5th (Feb. 28, 2025), the Court of Appeal (Fourth Appellate District, Division One) held that courts must examine the complaint itself to determine if it includes arbitrable individual PAGA claims.
In Lui v. DeJoy, (9th Cir.) F.3d (Feb. 27, 2025), the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit clarified the fourth element of the McDonnell Douglas test for disparate treatment claims under Title VII, specifically regarding the “similarly situated” requirement.
Ninth Circuit clarifies McDonnell Douglas “similarly situated” requirement: Lui v. DeJoy Read More
In Ramirez v. Charter Communications, Inc., Cal.App.5th (Feb. 26, 2025), the Court of Appeal (Second Appellate District, Division Four) declined on remand to sever unconscionable portions of an arbitration agreement, holding that doing so “would not further the interests of justice.”
From childbirth and medical leave to jury duty and caring for sick family members, employees need to take time off work for many different reasons. But employers aren’t always supportive. Fortunately, federal and California laws protect important employee leave rights. This guide explains key job-protected leave rights available to California workers.
A Complete Guide to Workplace Leave Laws in California Read More
In Arzate v. ACE American Insurance Company, Cal.App.5th (Feb. 21, 2025), the Court of Appeal (Second Appellate District, Division One) held that a court order lifting a stay and deeming a defendant’s right to arbitration waived was appealable under the functional equivalent doctrine.
Disputes over bonus and commission pay are common. In particular, employers sometimes refuse to pay bonuses or commissions rightfully earned by employees. It’s crucial to understand your rights. You need to know how to respond if your employer illegally withholds this pay. This guide explains California’s rules for bonus and commission payments, and what to do if your employer isn’t paying you what you’ve earned.
Bonus Pay and Commission Laws in California: A Complete Guide Read More
In Sandhu v. Bd. of Admin. of CalPERS, Cal.App.5th (Feb. 19, 2025), the Court of Appeal (Third Appellate District) held that a CalPERS retiree working for a private company was a common law employee of the public agencies that company served, violating CalPERS rules.
California has a unique labor law: the Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act. PAGA allows workers to act as private attorneys general. What does this mean? Employees can sue their employers directly on behalf of themselves, other affected employees, and the State of California. This article will help you figure out if filing a PAGA claim is the right choice for your situation.
California PAGA Claims: A Complete Guide for Employees Read More
In Vo v. Technology Credit Union, Cal.App.5th (Feb. 6, 2025), the Court of Appeal (Sixth Appellate District) held that an arbitration agreement incorporating JAMS rules was not substantively unconscionable because Rule 17(b) authorizes non-party discovery.
If you’re facing workplace harassment, you’re likely wondering what steps you can take. This guide aims to help you understand your legal rights and choices under California law. We’ll start with a clear explanation of key laws. Then, we’ll discuss when your employer might be responsible for harassing behavior and what your legal options are.
How to Deal With Workplace Harassment in California Read More
In LaMarr v. The Regents of the University of California, ______ Cal.App.3rd _____ (Apr. 5, 2024), the Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District affirmed that the Regents of the University of California did not violate an employee’s due process rights when it failed to offer a Skelly hearing before she voluntarily accepted a demotion.
In LaMarr v. The Regents of the University of California, ______ Cal.App.3rd _____ (Apr. 5, 2024), the Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District affirmed that the Regents of the University of California did not violate an employee’s due process rights when it failed to offer a Skelly hearing before she voluntarily accepted a demotion.
Workplace discrimination impacts employees at all levels, from entry-level positions to senior management. Most people know that discrimination is illegal. However, employees may not fully understand their rights. Employers may not fully recognize their responsibilities. This article aims to clarify what counts as discrimination, and what you can do to protect your rights.
The Complete Guide to California Workplace Discrimination Laws Read More
In LaMarr v. The Regents of the University of California, ______ Cal.App.3rd _____ (Apr. 5, 2024), the Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District affirmed that the Regents of the University of California did not violate an employee’s due process rights when it failed to offer a Skelly hearing before she voluntarily accepted a demotion.
In LaMarr v. The Regents of the University of California, ______ Cal.App.3rd _____ (Apr. 5, 2024), the Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District affirmed that the Regents of the University of California did not violate an employee’s due process rights when it failed to offer a Skelly hearing before she voluntarily accepted a demotion.
In LaMarr v. The Regents of the University of California, ______ Cal.App.3rd _____ (Apr. 5, 2024), the Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District affirmed that the Regents of the University of California did not violate an employee’s due process rights when it failed to offer a Skelly hearing before she voluntarily accepted a demotion.
In this article, we’ll explain who is entitled to meal and rest breaks in California. We’ll also help you determine break time amounts based on your shift length. Finally, we’ll cover key rules defining what makes breaks legally compliant or non-compliant and help you figure out what to do if your employer is illegally denying rest and meal breaks.
A Guide to California’s Labor Laws about Rest and Meal Breaks Read More
In LaMarr v. The Regents of the University of California, ______ Cal.App.3rd _____ (Apr. 5, 2024), the Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District affirmed that the Regents of the University of California did not violate an employee’s due process rights when it failed to offer a Skelly hearing before she voluntarily accepted a demotion.
Employers in California and throughout the United States have a lot of leeway to fire workers with and without cause. Nonetheless, numerous federal and California state laws protect employees from being wrongfully terminated. We’re here to help you understand your rights and options. We’ll help walk you through what you need to know to make sense of your situation.
Wrongful Termination in California: What to Know and How to Respond Read More
Retaliation can stem from actions at work or protected activities outside of work. Fortunately, federal and California statutes forbid many forms of retaliation. This article breaks down everything you need to know to protect yourself from retaliation and fight back if your employer does illegally retaliate.
Workplace Retaliation in California and What to Do About It Read More
In LaMarr v. The Regents of the University of California, ______ Cal.App.3rd _____ (Apr. 5, 2024), the Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District affirmed that the Regents of the University of California did not violate an employee’s due process rights when it failed to offer a Skelly hearing before she voluntarily accepted a demotion.
In LaMarr v. The Regents of the University of California, ______ Cal.App.3rd _____ (Apr. 5, 2024), the Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District affirmed that the Regents of the University of California did not violate an employee’s due process rights when it failed to offer a Skelly hearing before she voluntarily accepted a demotion.
In LaMarr v. The Regents of the University of California, ______ Cal.App.3rd _____ (Apr. 5, 2024), the Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District affirmed that the Regents of the University of California did not violate an employee’s due process rights when it failed to offer a Skelly hearing before she voluntarily accepted a demotion.
In LaMarr v. The Regents of the University of California, ______ Cal.App.3rd _____ (Apr. 5, 2024), the Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District affirmed that the Regents of the University of California did not violate an employee’s due process rights when it failed to offer a Skelly hearing before she voluntarily accepted a demotion.
In LaMarr v. The Regents of the University of California, ______ Cal.App.3rd _____ (Apr. 5, 2024), the Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District affirmed that the Regents of the University of California did not violate an employee’s due process rights when it failed to offer a Skelly hearing before she voluntarily accepted a demotion.
In LaMarr v. The Regents of the University of California, ______ Cal.App.3rd _____ (Apr. 5, 2024), the Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District affirmed that the Regents of the University of California did not violate an employee’s due process rights when it failed to offer a Skelly hearing before she voluntarily accepted a demotion.
In Rodriguez v. Lawrence Equipment, Inc., Cal.App.5th (Nov. 12, 2024), the Court of Appeal (Second Appellate District, Division Three) held that an arbitrator’s findings determining an employee suffered no individual Labor Code violations can preclude plaintiffs from pursuing PAGA claims based on the same alleged
In Bedard v. City of Los Angeles, Cal.App.5th (Nov. 4, 2024), the Court of Appeal (Second Appellate District, Division Three) held that a police officer’s refusal to comply with a COVID-19 vaccination ordinance justified her termination, even though the city violated her Skelly rights.
In Ramirez v. City of Indio, Cal.App.5th (Oct. 14, 2024), the Court of Appeal (Fourth Appellate District, Division One) upheld the deference given to the terms of a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) in a public employment dispute.
In Bath v. State of California, Cal.App.5th (Oct. 14, 2024), the Court of Appeal (First Appellate District, Division Two) held that a public employee’s right to compensation, upon completion of their work, ripens into a contractual right that can be pursued independently of Labor Code
In Liu v. Miniso Depot CA, Inc., Cal.App.5th (Oct. 8, 2024), the Court of Appeal (Second Appellate District, Division One) held that when a plaintiff asserts at least one sexual harassment claim under the Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act of
In Wentworth v. Regents of the University of California, Cal.App.5th (Oct. 2, 2024), the Court of Appeal (First Appellate District, Division Four) held that personal information need not be “confidential” or “private” to be protected from disclosure by the Information Practices Act (IPA).
In Mooney v. Fife, (9th Cir.) F.3d (Oct. 1, 2024), the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that the McDonnell Douglas framework and Moore test apply to False Claims Act (FCA) retaliation claims, rejecting a heightened standard of notice for employees with compliance
In Miller v. California Dept. of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Cal.App.5th (Sep. 25, 2024), the Court of Appeal (Fourth Appellate District, Division Two) clarified the evidence needed for FEHA disability discrimination claims to survive summary adjudication.
In Kim v. Uber Technologies, Inc., Cal.App.5th (Sep. 24, 2024), the Court of Appeal (Second Appellate District, Division Eight) held that Uber was not vicariously liable for a driver’s negligence when the driver was not acting as an Uber driver.
In Silloway v. City and County of San Francisco, (9th Cir.) F.3d (Sep. 12, 2024), the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that courts must analyze how employees are actually paid to determine whether they are compensated on a salary basis, looking beyond
In Parker v. BNSF Railway Company, (9th Cir.) F.3d (Aug. 12, 2024), the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held 2-1 that the Federal Railroad Safety Act (FRSA) prohibits employers from discharging employees “due even ‘in part’ ” to an employee’s refusal to violate
In Taylor v. Tesla, Inc., Cal.App.5th (Aug. 12, 2024), the Court of Appeal (First Appellate District, Division Four) held that refusing to comply with a statutory records request related to pending litigation is not protected activity under the anti-SLAPP statute.
In Kennedy v. Las Vegas Sands Corp, (9th Cir.) F.3d (Aug. 2, 2024), the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that a group of five corporate jet pilots was exempt from overtime under the FLSA.
In Stone v. Alameda Health System, Cal.5th (Aug. 1, 2024), the California Supreme Court held that public employers are generally exempt from Labor Code provisions and are not subject to PAGA suits for civil penalties.
In Bailey v. San Francisco District Attorney’s Office, Cal.App.5th (Aug. 1, 2024), the California Supreme Court held that a coworker’s single use of a racial slur can be actionable in a harassment claim and that conduct preventing an employee from reporting harassment may constitute an
In Turrieta v. Lyft, Inc., Cal.5th (Aug. 1, 2024), the California Supreme Court held 4-3 that PAGA plaintiffs lack standing to intervene, move to vacate judgment, or object to settlements in other PAGA cases against the same employer for the same Labor Code violations.
In Castellanos, et al. v. State of California, et al., Cal.5th (Jul. 29, 2024), the California Supreme Court rejected a challenge to Proposition 22, holding that Bus. & Prof. Code § 7451 does not conflict with the legislature’s broad power to regulate workers’ compensation.
In Ruelas v. County of Alameda et al., (9th Cir.) F.3d (Jul. 26, 2024), the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, following a ruling by the California Supreme Court, held that nonconvicted county inmates working for a private company are not entitled to Labor
In Okonowsky v. Garland, (9th Cir.) F.3d (Jul. 26, 2024), the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that offsite and third-party conduct, including social media activity, as well as non-sexual but retaliatory or intimidating conduct, must be considered in evaluating hostile work environment
In Kama v. Mayorkas, (9th Cir.) F.3d (Jul. 19, 2024), the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that temporal proximity between an employee’s EEO complaint and his termination, along with supervisor awareness of the complaint, were insufficient to show pretext for retaliation under
In Behrend v. San Francisco Zen Center, Inc., (9th Cir.) F.3d (Jul. 18, 2024), the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that a work practice apprentice at a Buddhist temple was subject to the ministerial exception, barring his ADA claim for disability discrimination.
In Cadena v. Customer Connexx LLC, (9th Cir.) F.3d (Jul. 11, 2024), the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that the de minimis doctrine applies to overtime claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), with the employer bearing the burden of proof.
In Musquiz v. U.S. Railroad Retirement Board, (9th Cir.) F.3d (Jul. 5, 2024), the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit addressed the liability of a retired railroad employee for overpayments of his annuity.
9th Circuit rules on RRB overpayment liability: Musquiz v. U.S. Railroad Retirement Board Read More
In Perez v. Barrick Goldstrike Mines, Inc., (9th Cir.) F.3d (Jul. 1, 2024), the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that employers may use evidence other than a contrary medical opinion to challenge a doctor’s certification for FMLA leave.
In Paleny v. Fireplace Products U.S., Inc., Cal.App.5th (June 28, 2024), the Court of Appeal (Third Appellate District) held that egg retrieval and freezing procedures completed before the 2023 amendment of Gov. Code § 12940 are not protected under FEHA because they are not “a
In Rajaram v. Meta Platforms, Inc., (9th Cir.) F.3d (Jun. 28, 2024), the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held 2-1 that 42 U.S.C. § 1981 prohibits employers from discriminating against job applicants based on their U.S. citizenship.
In Lusardi Construction Co v. Dept of Industrial Relations, Cal.App.5th (June 26, 2024), the Court of Appeal (Fourth Appellate District, Division One) held that a prime contractor’s knowledge of its subcontractor’s Labor Code violations was sufficient to establish liability under the former Labor Code §
In Frayo v. Martin., Cal.App.5th (June 25, 2024), the Court of Appeal (Sixth Appellate District) held that an employer did not violate the Confidentiality of Medical Information Act (CMIA) by terminating an employee for refusing a third-party COVID-19 test.
In Hittle v. City of Stockton, (9th Cir.) F.3d (May 20, 2024), the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, in an amended opinion, denied an FEHA plaintiff’s petition for panel rehearing and rehearing en banc due to a lack of “specific and substantial” evidence.
In Ibarra v. Chuy Sons Labor, Inc., Cal.App.5th (June 20, 2024), the Court of Appeal (Second Appellate District, Division Six) held that, pursuant to PAGA’s prefiling notice requirement, plaintiffs need not define “other aggrieved employees” except to nonfrivolously allege that they exist.
In DeFries v. Union Pacific Railroad Company, (9th Cir.) F.3d (Jun. 17, 2024), the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that “ambiguity about the scope of a putative or certified class should be resolved in favor of tolling” for bystander plaintiffs under American
In Ververka v. Department of Veterans Affairs, Cal.App.5th (Jun. 7, 2024), the Court of Appeal (Third Appellate District) held that an employer’s “same decision” showing under Lab. Code § 1102.6 bars all relief for § 1102.5 whistleblower plaintiffs.
In Hoglund v. Sierra Nevada Memorial-Miners Hospital, Cal.App.5th (May 20, 2024), the Court of Appeal (Third Appellate District) held that an employer’s ongoing inaction in response to discrimination complaints did not trigger the permanence exception to FEHA’s continuing violations doctrine.
In Olson et. al v. State of California, (9th Cir.) F.3d (Jun. 11, 2024), the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit upheld the dismissal of an Equal Protection challenge to A.B. 5 based on rational basis review.
In Diaz v. Macy’s West Stores, Inc., (9th Cir.) F.3d (May 13, 2024), the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that arbitrating an individual PAGA claim does not strip a plaintiff’s standing to pursue non-individual claims in court, and that non-individual claims may
In Bafford et al. v. Administrative Committee of the Northrop Grumman Pension Plan, (9th Cir.) F.3d (May 10, 2024), the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that inaccurate pension statements violate ERISA’s disclosure requirements and are penalizable.
In Naranjo v. Spectrum Security Services, Inc., (May 7, 2024), the Supreme Court held that an employer’s good faith belief it provided accurate wage statements precludes penalties under Labor Code § 226 for “knowing and willful” omissions.
In LaMarr v. The Regents of the University of California, ______ Cal.App.3rd _____ (Apr. 5, 2024), the Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District affirmed that the Regents of the University of California did not violate an employee’s due process rights when it failed to offer a Skelly hearing before she voluntarily accepted a demotion.
In Mondragon v. Sunrun Inc., Cal.App.5th (Apr. 24, 2024), the Court of Appeal (Second Appellate District, Division Seven) held that courts may decide arbitrability issues unless the arbitration agreement “clearly and unmistakably” delegates that authority to the arbitrator.
In Ruelas v. County of Alameda et al., Cal.5th (Apr. 23, 2024), the California Supreme Court held that nonconvicted county inmates working for a private company in a county jail are not entitled to minimum wage or overtime.
In Mattioda v. Nelson, (9th Cir.) F.3d (Apr. 23, 2024), the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that hostile work environment claims are cognizable under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and clarified the standard for evaluating such claims.
In Balderas v. Fresh Start Harvesting, Inc., Cal.App.5th (Apr. 22, 2024), the Court of Appeal (Second Appellate District, Division Six) held that aggrieved employees may bring representative PAGA claims even if they do not file an individual cause of action.
In Kuigoua v. Department of Veteran Affairs., Cal.App.5th (Apr. 19, 2024), the Court of Appeal (Second Appellate District, Division Eight) held that a FEHA plaintiff who presented substantially different facts at trial than those submitted in his charge to the DFEH and EEOC failed to
