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 April 22, 2024)
Arbitration
Basith v. LAD Carson-Nm LLC, 90 Cal.App.5th 951 (2023), review granted, 2023 WL 5114947 (Aug. 9, 2023); S280258/B316098
The petition for review is granted. 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.
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.
Quach v. California Commerce Club, Inc., 78 Cal. App. 5th 470 (2022), review granted, 297 Cal. Rptr. 3d 592 (Mem) (Aug. 24, 2022); S275121/B310458
Petition for review after reversal of order denying petition to compel arbitration. Does California’s test for determining whether a party has waived its right to compel arbitration by engaging in litigation remain valid after the United States Supreme Court decision in Morgan v. Sundance, Inc., ___ U.S. ___ [142 S.Ct. 1708] (2022)? Fully briefed.
Ramirez v. Charter Communications, Inc., 75 Cal. App. 5th 365 (2021), review granted, 2022 WL 2037698 (Mem) (Jun. 1, 2022); S273802/B309408
Petition for review after affirmance of order denying petition to compel arbitration. Did the Court of Appeal err in holding that a provision of an arbitration agreement allowing for recovery of interim attorney’s fees after a successful motion to compel arbitration, was so substantively unconscionable that it rendered the arbitration agreement unenforceable? Fully briefed.
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.
Discrimination | Harassment | Retaliation
Bailey v. San Francisco District Attorney’s Office, non-published opinion, 2020 WL 5542657 (2020), review granted (Dec. 30, 2020) S265223/A153520
Petition for review after affirmance of summary judgment. Did the Court of Appeal properly affirm summary judgment in favor of defendants on plaintiff’s claims of hostile work environment based on race, retaliation, and failure to prevent discrimination, harassment and retaliation? Fully briefed.
Wage and Hour
Accurso v. In-N-Out Burgers (Piplack), 94 Cal. App. 5th 1128 (2023), review granted 2023 WL 8264179 (Mem) (Nov. 29, 2023); S282173/A165320
Review granted after vacating order denying intervention. Further action in this matter is deferred pending consideration and disposition of related issues in Turrieta v. Lyft (Seifu), S271721 (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.
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.
Castellanos v. State of California, 89 Cal.App.5th 131 (2023), review granted 309 Cal. Rptr. 3d 725 (Mem) (Jun. 28, 2023); S279622/A163655M
Petition for review after affirmance in part and reversal in part the judgment in an action for writ of mandate. Is Proposition 22 (the "Protect App-Based Drivers and Services Act") invalid because it conflicts with article XIV, section 4 of the California Constitution? Fully briefed.
Iloff v. LaPaille, 80 Cal.App.5th 427 (2022) review granted 2022 WL 15050274 (Oct. 26, 2022); S274340/A163503
Petition for review after affirmance in part and reversal in part of the judgment. (1) Must an employer demonstrate that it affirmatively took steps to ascertain whether its pay practices comply with the Labor Code and Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Orders to establish a good faith defense to liquidated damages under Labor Code section 1194.2, subdivision (b)? (2) May a wage claimant prosecute a paid sick leave claim under section 248.5, subdivision (b) of the Healthy Workplaces, Healthy Families Act of 2014 (Lab. Code, § 245 et seq.) in a de novo wage claim trial conducted pursuant to Labor Code section 98.2? Submitted/opinion due.
Naranjo v. Spectrum Security Services, Inc., 13 Cal.5th 93 (2022), review granted (May 31, 2023); S279397/B256232
Petition for review after affirmance in part and reversal in part of judgment. Does an employer's good faith belief that it complied with Cal. Lab. Code § 226(a) preclude a finding that its failure to report wages earned was "knowing and intentional" as is necessary to recover penalties under Cal. Lab. Code § 226(e)(1)? Submitted/opinion due.
Rattagan v. Uber Technologies, 19 F.4th 1188 (9th Cir. Dec. 6, 2021), request granted (Feb. 29, 2022) S272113/9th Circ. No. 20-16796
Request under California Rules of Court, rule 8.548, that this court decide questions of California law presented in a matter pending in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Under California law, are claims for fraudulent concealment exempted from the economic loss rule? Fully briefed.
Stone v. Alameda Health System, 88 Cal. App. 5th 84 (2023), rev. granted, 2023 WL 3514241 (May 17, 2023) S279137/A164021
Petition for review after affirmance in part and reversal in part an order in a civil action.(1) Are all public entities exempt from the obligations in the Cal. Lab. Code regarding meal and rest breaks, overtime, and payroll records, or only those public entities that satisfy the “hallmarks of sovereignty” standard adopted by the Court of Appeal in this case? (2) Does the exemption from the prompt payment statutes in Cal. Lab. Code § 220, subdivision (b), for “employees directly employed by any county, incorporated city, or town or other municipal corporation” include all public entities that exercise governmental functions? (3) Do the civil penalties available under the Private Attorneys General Act of 2004, codified at Cal. Lab. Code § 2698 et seq., apply to public entities? Fully briefed.
Turrieta v. Lyft, Inc., 284 Cal. Rptr. 3d 767 (2021), review granted, 2022 WL 57711 (Mem) (Jan. 5, 2022); S271721/B304701
Petition for review after affirmance of judgment. Does a plaintiff in a representative action filed under the Private Attorneys General Act (Cal. Lab. Code § 2698 et seq.) (PAGA) have the right to intervene, or object to, or move to vacate, a judgment in a related action that purports to settle the claims that plaintiff has brought on behalf of the state? Fully briefed.
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 Labor Code section 1102.5, subdivision (b)? Fully briefed.
Retirement Benefits
Ventura County Employees' etc. v. Criminal Justice Attys. etc., 98 Cal.App.5th 1119 (2024), review granted, 2024 WL 1665726 (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 Government Code section 31461, subdivision (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? Review granted/brief due.