California Employment Law Blog

Erika Paleny v. Fireplace Products U.S., Inc. highlights how the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) defines and protects pregnancy-related medical conditions. The Court of Appeal ruled that elective egg retrieval procedures without an underlying medical condition do not qualify for FEHA protections, emphasizing the need for clear connections between medical conditions and the statutory protections under FEHA.

In the case of Dominique Keeton v. Tesla, Inc., the Court of Appeal ruled that Tesla’s failure to pay arbitration fees on time breached its arbitration agreement, allowing an employee to pursue her claims in court. The decision emphasizes the necessity for employers to comply with arbitration agreements and deadlines to avoid unwanted litigation.

California's labor landscape is set to change significantly with a new agreement to reform the Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA). The reforms include capping penalties for employers who promptly rectify issues, imposing higher penalties for malicious violations, increasing the portion of penalties allocated to employees from 25% to 35%, expanding the range of labor code sections that can be cured, and requiring employees to personally suffer labor violations to bring claims.

In Ramirez v. Golden Queen Mining, the Court of Appeal examined the enforceability of arbitration agreements within employment contracts, emphasizing how crucial it is for employers to ensure that arbitration agreements are properly presented, explained, and signed to withstand legal scrutiny.

The Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) grants California employees the authority to pursue civil penalties for labor violations. The recent Ninth Circuit case, Johnson v. Lowe's Home Centers, LLC (2024), underscores that employees may be compelled to arbitrate individual PAGA claims, while still maintaining the standing to pursue their non-individual claims in court.

The California Court of Appeal's decision in Hernandez v. Sohnen Enterprises clarifies that the FAA preempts California Code of Civil Procedure Section 1281.97, which allows employees to withdraw from arbitration if the employer fails to pay fees on time, when the agreement explicitly states it is governed by the FAA.

The case of Ronald Hittle v. City of Stockton illustrates the importance of adhering to Title VII and FEHA guidelines to prevent religious discrimination in employment, highlighting the necessity for employers to provide legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for termination.

With Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, the United States Supreme Court has determined that under Title VII, any job transfer that adversely affects an employee's terms or conditions of employment due to their sex can be considered discrimination, regardless of whether it impacts salary, title, or benefits.

The California Supreme Court ruled in Naranjo v. Spectrum Security Services, Inc. that meal break premiums are wages that must be reported on wage statements, but employers acting in good faith, despite being mistaken, are shielded from penalties for "knowing and intentional" violations under Section 226.

In Angel Mondragon v. Sunrun Inc., the California Court of Appeal affirmed the necessity for precise language in arbitration agreements, upholding the exclusion of all PAGA claims from arbitration based on the agreement's explicit terms.

In Lizbeth Balderas v. Fresh Start Harvesting, Inc., the California Court of Appeal reversed a lower court ruling, affirming that under PAGA, employees can pursue representative actions for labor violations without an individual claim, challenging the U.S. Supreme Court's interpretation in Viking River Cruises.

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in Fli-Lo Falcon, LLC v. Amazon.com, Inc. has affirmed the enforceability of arbitration agreements in commercial contracts between businesses, clarifying that the Federal Arbitration Act's "transportation worker exemption" does not apply to business entities.

In Gautam Shah v. Skillz Inc. (2024), the California Court of Appeal determined that stock options do not constitute "wages" under the California Labor Code, a decision with significant implications for the technology and startup sectors where such options are a key part of compensation packages.

Assembly Bill (AB) 2751 in California seeks to grant workers a "right to disconnect" by mandating clear work hour definitions and limiting after-hours communications. Critics, however, worry it may lead to inflexibility for both employers and employees.

The California Industrial Welfare Commission (IWC) sets labor standards, including Wage Order No. 16-2001 for sectors like construction and mining. In George Huerta v. CSI Electrical Contractors (2024), the California Supreme Court ruled that security checks, certain intra-premises travel, and on-site meal breaks count as compensable "hours worked," underscoring employer control as a key factor.

Ariana Miles v. Kirkland (2024) underscores the complexities of class action certification in employment law, emphasizing the need for shared employee grievances and consistent enforcement of legally compliant employer policy.

Ortiz v. Randstad (2024) clarifies the FAA's transportation worker exemption, affirming that warehouse workers involved in interstate commerce are exempt from arbitration, emphasizing the role-specific duties play in determining exemption eligibility.

California's Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) allows for "mixed motive" cases where disability need not be the sole cause but a significant factor in employment decisions. Lin v. Kaiser Foundation Hospitals (2023) exemplifies the application of "mixed motive" analysis, demonstrating the challenges and nuances in distinguishing between legitimate business decisions and discriminatory practices, and emphasizing the importance of clear documentation and accommodation in the workplace.

In Atalla v. Rite Aid Corporation (2023), the Court of Appeal found no employer liability for a supervisor's sexually inappropriate texts and photos sent to an employee outside of work hours. The court also dismissed a claim of constructive termination, citing the employer's swift action in terminating the harasser and inviting the employee back to work.

In a recent case, the California Court of Appeal interpreted Section 1281.98 of the California Arbitration Act, emphasizing the 30-day deadline for receiving arbitration fees. The court ruled that fees must be both sent and received within 30 days after the due date, highlighting the importance of timely payments to avoid material breach of arbitration agreements under California law.

In Hittle v. City of Stockton, former fire chief Ronald Hittle claimed religious discrimination, citing remarks by the deputy city manager. Despite Hittle's attempts to use the comments as evidence, the Ninth Circuit upheld the city's summary judgment, emphasizing the insufficiency of the remarks in meeting the criteria to defeat summary judgment and the city's valid reasons for termination based on Hittle's job performance.

The Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act, effective March 3, 2022, invalidates prior arbitration agreements for sexual assault or harassment disputes. In Kader v. Southern California Medical Center, Inc. (2024), a California Court of Appeal clarified that a "dispute" arises when a party asserts a right, claim, or demand, not when the alleged misconduct actually occurred.

Unconscionability renders contracts unenforceable due to unfairness, involving procedural and substantive elements. In employment arbitration, as seen in Hasty v. AAA, unconscionability is crucial for validity, necessitating the need for conscionable drafting by California employers to ensure legal compliance.

Under section 1281.97, if an employer fails to pay arbitration fees within 30 days of the due date, it constitutes a "material breach," leading to the forfeiture of arbitration rights. In Suarez v. Superior Court (2024), an employer sought to evade section 1281.97 through alternative filing requirements. The Court of Appeal dismissed the employer's arguments, emphasizing the importance of timely payment for employers to uphold arbitration agreements.

In Demarinis v. Heritage Bank of Commerce (2023), employees, initially under an arbitration agreement, grappled with complexities tied to PAGA, arbitration waivers, and "poison pill" clauses. This case emphasizes the need for meticulous drafting of arbitration clauses, underscoring the importance of specificity in waiver provisions, as the inclusion of a "poison pill" can lead to an entire arbitration contract being deemed unenforceable.