​
Bimonthly column prepared for the California Lawyers Association (formerly State Bar of California) California Labor & Employment Law Review since 2003.
Link to Latest Column
(Updated May 16, 2025)
Arbitration
​
Basith v. LAD Carson-Nm LLC, 90 Cal. App. 5th 951 (2023), review granted, 2023 WL 5114947 (Aug. 9, 2023); S280258/B316098
Petition for review after reversal of order denying motion to compel arbitration. Further action in this matter is deferred pending consideration and disposition of a related issue in Fuentes v. Empire Nissan, Inc., S280256 (see Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.512(d)(2)), or pending further order of the court. Submission of additional briefing, pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 8.520, is deferred pending further order of the court. Holding for lead case.
​
Colon-Perez v. Security Industry Specialist, 108 Cal. App. 5th 403 (2025), review granted, 2025 WL 1132079 (Apr. 16, 2025), S289702/A168297
Petition for review after affirmance of order vacating order to compel arbitration under Code Civ. Proc. §1281.98 and denying relief under §473(b). Further action in this matter is deferred pending consideration and disposition of a related issue in Hohenshelt v. S.C. (Golden State Foods Corp.), S284498 (see Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.512(d)(2)), or pending further order of the court. Holding for lead case.
​
Fuentes v. Empire Nissan, 90 Cal. App. 5th 919 (2023), review granted, 2023 WL 5114942 (Aug. 9, 2023); S280256/B314490
Petition for review after reversal of order denying a petition to compel arbitration. Is the form arbitration agreement that the employer here required prospective employees to sign as a condition of employment unenforceable against an employee due to unconscionability? Fully briefed.
​
Hernandez v. Sohnen Enterprises, 102 Cal. App. 5th 222 (2024), review granted, 2024 WL 3893693 (Mem) (Aug. 21, 2024); S285696/B323303 Arbitration
Petition for review after reversal of judgment. Further action in this matter is deferred pending consideration and disposition of a related issue in Hohenshelt v. Superior Court (Golden State Foods Corporation), S284498 (see Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.512(d)(2)), or pending further order of the court. Submission of additional briefing, pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 8.520, is deferred pending further order of the court. Holding for lead case.
​
Hohenshelt v. Superior Court (Golden State Foods), 99 Cal.App.5th 1319 (2024), review granted, 2024 WL 2966505 (Mem) (Jun. 12, 2024); S284498/B327524
Petition for review after grant of petition for writ of mandate. Does the Federal Arbitration Act (9 U.S.C. § 1 et seq.) preempt state statutes prescribing the procedures for paying arbitration fees and providing for forfeiture of the right to arbitrate if timely payment is not made by the party who drafted the arbitration agreement and who is required to pay such fees? Oral argument May 21, 2025.​
​
Keeton v. Tesla, 103 Cal.App.5th 26 (2024), review granted, 2024 WL 4160072 (Mem) (Sept. 11, 2024); S286260/A166690
Petition for review after affirmance of order vacating submission of dispute to arbitration. Briefing deferred pending decision in Hohenshelt v. Superior Court, S284498. Does the Federal Arbitration Act (9 U.S.C. § 1 et seq.) preempt state statutes prescribing the procedures for paying arbitration fees and providing for forfeiture of the right to arbitrate if timely payment is not made by the party who drafted the arbitration agreement and who is required to pay such fees? Holding for lead case.
​
Rodriguez v. Packers Sanitation Services, Ltd., 109 Cal.App.5th 69 (2025), review granted, 2025 WL 1404550 (May 14, 2025) S290182/D083400
Petition for review after denial of motion to compel arbitration. Further action in this matter is deferred pending consideration and disposition of related issues in Leeper v. Shipt, S289305 (see Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.512(d)(2)), or pending further order of the court. Holding for lead case.
​​
Zhang v. Superior Court, 85 Cal. App. 5th 167 (2022), review granted, 304 Cal. Rptr. 3d 549 (Mem) (Feb. 15, 2023); S277736/B314386
Petition for review after denial of petition for writ of mandate. (1) If an employer files a motion to compel arbitration in a non-California forum pursuant to a contractual forum-selection clause, and an employee raises as a defense Cal. Lab. Code § 925, which prohibits an employer from requiring a California employee to agree to a provision requiring the employee to adjudicate outside of California a claim arising in California, is the court in the non-California forum one of “competent jurisdiction” ( Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 1281.4) such that the motion to compel requires a mandatory stay of the California proceedings? (2) Does the presence of a delegation clause in an employment contract delegating issues of arbitrability to an arbitrator prohibit a California court from enforcing Cal. Lab. Code § 925 in opposition to the employer’s stay motion? Fully briefed.
​
Retirement
Los Angeles County Employees Retirement Assn. v. County of Los Angeles, 102 Cal.App.5th 1167(2024), review granted, 2024 WL 4511044 (Mem) (Oct. 16, 2024); S286264/B326977
Petition for review after reversal of judgment. (1) Does the board of a county public employee retirement system established under the County Employees Retirement Law of 1937 (CERL) (Gov. Code, § 31450 et seq.) have authority under the California Constitution and relevant statutes to create employment classifications and set salaries for employees of the retirement system? (2) Does Government Code section 31522.1 impose a ministerial duty on a county board of supervisors to include in the county’s employment classifications and salary ordinance the classifications and salaries adopted by the board of a county public employee retirement system for employees of that system? (3) Do Proposition 162 (Cal. Const., art. XVI, § 17) and CERL override a county board of supervisors’ constitutional authority to establish civil service classifications, set salaries, and maintain a civil service system for county employees under article XI of the California Constitution? Fully briefed.
​
San Jose, City of v. Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, 101 Cal. App. 5th 777 (2024), review granted, 2024 WL 3819092 (Aug. 14, 2024); S285426/H050889
Petition for review granted following affirmance of judgment. Is the issuance of pension obligation bonds to finance unfunded pension liability subject to the voter-approval requirement of article XVI, section 18, subdivision (a) of the California Constitution? Fully briefed.
​
Ventura County Employees’ Retirement Assn. v. Criminal Justice Attorneys Assn. of Ventura County, 98 Cal. App. 5th 1119 (2024), review granted, 320 Cal. Rptr. 3d 117 (Mem) (Apr. 17, 2024); S283978/B325277
Petition for review after affirmance of judgment. For purposes of calculating retirement benefits for members of County Employees Retirement Law of 1937 (Cal. Gov’t Code § 31450 et seq.) retirement systems, does Cal. Gov’t Code § 31461(b)(2) exclude payments for accrued, but unused hours of annual leave that would exceed the maximum amount of leave that was earnable and payable in a calendar year? Fully briefed.
Wage and Hour​
​
Camp v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., 84 Cal. App. 5th 638 (2022), review granted (Feb. 1, 2023); S277518/H049033
Petition after reversal of judgment. Under California law, are employers permitted to use neutral time-rounding practices to calculate employees’ work time for payroll purposes? Fully briefed.​
​
Iloff v. LaPaille, 80 Cal. App. 5th 427 (2022) review granted, 2022 WL 15050274 (Oct. 26, 2022); S275848/A163504
Petition for review after affirmance in part and reversal in part. (1) Must an employer demonstrate that it affirmatively took steps to ascertain whether its pay practices comply with Cal. Lab. Code and Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Orders to establish a good faith defense to liquidated damages under Cal. Lab. Code §1194.2(b)? (2) May a wage claimant prosecute a paid sick leave claim under section 248.5(b) of the Healthy Workplaces, Healthy Families Act of 2014 (Cal. Lab. Code § 245 et seq.) in a de novo wage claim trial conducted pursuant to Cal. Lab. Code § 98.2? Oral argument June 4, 2025.​​​
​
Leeper v. Shipt, Inc. 107 Cal. App. 5th 1001 (2024), review granted, 2025 WL 1132271(Apr. 16, 2025); S289305/B339670
Review granted on court's own motion after denial of depublication. (1) Does every Private Attorneys General Act (Cal. Lab. Code, § 2698 et seq.) (PAGA) action necessarily include both individual and non-individual PAGA claims, regardless of whether the complaint specifically alleges individual claims? 2.) Can a plaintiff choose to bring only a non-individual PAGA action? Opening brief due.
​
Whistleblower
Brown v. City of Inglewood, 92 Cal. App. 5th 1256 (2023), review granted, 2023 WL 6300304 (Mem) (Sept. 27, 2023), S280773/B320658
Petition for review after affirmance in part and reversal in part of an anti-SLAPP order. Are elected officials employees for purposes of whistleblower protection under Cal. Lab. Code § 1102.5(b)? Submitted/opinion due.
​
Wrongful Termination
​
Hearn v. Pacific Gas & Electric Co., 108 Cal.App.5th 301 (2025), review granted, 2025 WL 1404484 (May 14, 2025) S289581/A167742, A167991
Petition for review after affirmance in part and reversal in part of judgment. May a terminated employee bring a defamation claim against a former employer when the defamation allegedly contributed to the reasons for the termination of that employment or must such a claim be pursued under a wrongful discharge theory? Review granted/brief due.
​