Newly-Published Labor and Employment Law Cases

Cash v. County of Los Angeles (CA2/5 B336980 part. pub. 5/30/25) Attorney Fee Award
The trial court reduced the attorney fee award for a prevailing plaintiff in a FEHA action by an “across-the-board” 30-percent cut based on “unreasonable padding,” “duplicative” work, and unnecessary work by the plaintiff’s attorneys. Plaintiff appealed, citing to recent California decisions requiring a trial court to articulate “case-specific reasons for [any] percentage reduction,” including a clear explanation of its reasons for choosing the negative multiplier that it chose. The court rejected this standard, holding that the heightened standard is inconsistent with California’s longstanding policy that “the experienced trial judge is the best judge of the value of professional services rendered in their court.”

Schneider v. Superior Court (CA2/7 B341712 5/29/25) Pitchess Motion | Police Officers’ Personnel Files
Schneider was on trial for murder. He filed a discovery motion under Pitchess v. Superior Court (1974) 11 Cal.3d 531 seeking discovery of Brady information in the confidential personnel records of six Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department deputies. The trial court denied Schneider’s request for disclosure of the Brady material itself, and instead ordered disclosure of the names, addresses, and telephone numbers of the individuals who had witnessed or complained of the conduct at issue. The appellate court reversed, concluding the trial court should have ordered LASD to disclosed all Brady material in the deputies’ personnel files, including documents and any audio-video materials.

Osuna v. Spectrum Security Services, Inc. (CA2/6 B338047 5/27/25) PAGA Standing Requirement (Pre-2024 Reform)
Prior to amendments in 2024, Labor Code section 2699 defined an “aggrieved employee” as “any person who was employed by the alleged violator and against whom one or more of the alleged violations was committed.” Osuna sued Spectrum for Labor Code violations, asserting five individual and class claims, and a sixth representative Private Attorneys General Act claim. The trial court dismissed Osuna’s class claims, sent his individual claims to arbitration, and sustained Spectrum’s demurrer to his representative PAGA claim on the ground that he lacked standing to bring the PAGA claim because he did not suffer a Labor Code violation during the one-year statute of limitations period for recovering civil penalties. On appeal, the court reversed, finding that Osuna had standing and that the trial court had “erroneously grafted requirements related to PAGA’s one-year statute of limitations for recovering civil penalties onto the definition of ‘aggrieved employee.’”

Thomas v. Corbyn Restaurant Development Corp. (CA4/1 D083655 5/27/25) Settlement Proceeds Paid to Imposter [not employment case, but holding is applicable to every settlement]
The parties settled a personal injury lawsuit for $475,000. An unknown third party purporting to be plaintiff’s counsel sent emails to defendant’s counsel with fraudulent wire instructions for the settlement proceeds. Defendant’s counsel wired the funds to the fraudulent account. When the fraud was discovered, plaintiff asked for the settlement money but defendants refused to pay. The trial court enforced the settlement agreement and ordered defendants to pay $475,000 to plaintiff, finding that defendants were in the best position to prevent the fraud. The court affirmed, finding substantial evidence supported the trial court’s findings that several red flags should have alerted defendants to the fraud, and that there were not any that should have alerted plaintiff.

Carranza v. City of Los Angeles (CA2/7 B327196 part. pub. 5/23/25) Sexual Harassment | Hostile Work Environment
Carranza, a captain in the Los Angeles Police Department, learned that a photo of a topless woman falsely said to be her was circulating electronically among LAPD personnel. Carranza asked the Department to notify employees that the photo was not of her and to order them to stop sharing it. The Department declined to do so. A jury awarded Carranza $4 million in noneconomic damages, finding she experienced severe or pervasive sexual harassment and LAPD failed to take corrective action despite knowing of the conduct. The court found substantial evidence supported the jury’s determination that Carranza suffered severe or pervasive sexual harassment even though she did not directly experience the harassing conduct.

Anderson v. Intel Corp. Inv. Policy Comm. (9th Cir. 22-16268 5/22/25) ERISA
The court affirmed the district court’s dismissal of Anderson’s putative class action under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act alleging that the trustees of Intel Corporation’s proprietary retirement funds breached their fiduciary duty of prudence and duty of loyalty. The court held that Anderson did not state a breach of duty of prudence claim because he failed to allege facts sufficient to support the claim that the trustees’ investments in hedge funds and private equity funds were ill-suited to the Intel funds. Anderson also failed to state a breach of duty of loyalty claim because he did not plausibly allege a real conflict of interest, rather than the mere potential for a conflict of interest, based on the trustees steering retirement funds to companies in which Intel’s venture-capital arm had already invested.

Parker v. BNSF Railway Co. (9th Cir. 22-35695 5/15/25) Federal Railroad Safety Act | Retaliation
BNSF fired Conductor Curtis Rookaird for inefficiency, failure to sign his timesheet, timesheet fraud, and insubordination. Rookaird sued BNSF, claiming he was fired because of his protected activity of testing air brakes on rail cars. The court held Rookaird established a prima facie case of retaliation by showing the air-brake test played a small role in BNSF’s firing decision. The court then held that BNSF met its steep burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that it would have fired Rookaird in the absence of his protected conduct.

Rose v. Hobby Lobby Stores (CA1/2 A169640 5/14/25) PAGA Prevailing Defendant | Cost Recovery against LWDA
Hobby Lobby prevailed in Rose’s lawsuit alleging Hobby Lobby violated the “suitable seating” provisions of the applicable Wage Order. The trail court ordered the California Labor and Workforce Development Agency to pay nearly $125,000 in costs to Hobby Lobby as the prevailing party. The court held that, even if a prevailing defendant in a PAGA action is entitled to recover its costs, those costs are not recoverable against the LWDA where it did not participate in the litigation, but was only the real party in interest.

Hofer v. Boladian (CA2/5 B339542 5/9/25) Arbitration Waiver (not an employment case, but may be applicable)
In Quach v. California Commerce Club, Inc. (2024) 16 Cal.5th 562, the California Supreme Court held that a party may waive its right to arbitration if clear and convincing evidence shows that the party “intentionally relinquished or abandoned” its right to compel arbitration. Here, plaintiffs sought two forms of injunctive relief, opposed a demurrer, propounded more than 700 discovery requests, at the case management conference demanded a jury trial and represented they would be litigating substantive motions, and paid jury fees. Six months later, when the opposing party filed a cross-complaint, plaintiffs filed a motion to compel arbitration. The court held that plaintiffs’ extensive litigation conduct waived their right to compel arbitration.

DeFrancesco v. Robbins (9th Cir. 23-16147 per curiam 5/7/25) First Amendment | Whistleblower Retaliation
DeFrancesco and his husband held high level positions at the University of Arizona Health System. DeFrancesco’s husband vocally opposed the hiring of Michael Dake as Senior Vice President. DeFrancesco’s husband left UAHS shortly after Dake was hired. A year-and-a-half later, Dake fired DeFrancesco. DeFrancesco filed suit, alleging that Dake harassed and fired him because of DeFrancesco’s husband’s speech in violation of the First Amendment. The court ruled that Dake and University President Robbins had qualified immunity from DeFrancesco’s claims because it was not clearly established at the time DeFrancesco was fired that the defendants’ adverse treatment of DeFrancesco because of his husband’s speech violated the First Amendment.

Sanders v. Super. Ct. (CA2/7 B340707 5/6/25) Arbitration | Untimely Fee Payment
Edward Jones & Co successfully compelled Sanders, its former employee, to arbitrate her individual Labor Code and Private Attorneys General Act claims. Edward Jones failed to pay $54,000 in arbitration fees and costs within 30 days of the payment due date. Sanders moved under Code of Civil Procedure section 1281.98(b)(1) to vacate the order compelling arbitration based on Edward Jones’s failure to timely pay the fees and costs. The appellate court held that the Federal Arbitration Act does not preempt CCP section 1281.98 because that section favors arbitration and does not single out arbitration agreements for less favorable treatment than other contracts.

L.A. College Faculty Guild, etc. v. L.A. Community College Dist. (CA2/8 B339084, filed 4/10/25, pub. 5/2/25) Arbitration | CBA
The Faculty Guild petitioned to compel arbitration of three grievances. The appellate court affirmed the trial court’s denial of the petition as to the grievances alleging safety violations from incomplete facilities projects and the failure to re-employ a faculty member whose position lost funding on the ground that both issues were pre-empted by the Education Code. The appellate court reversed the trial court’s partial grant of the motion to compel as to the third grievance, which sought a correction of an employee’s pension service credit, because only the California Public Employees’ Retirement System, not the District, could correct a service credit error.

Feliciano v. Dept. of Transportation (US 23–861 4/30/25) Differential Pay for Civilian Reservists
Federal law provides differential pay for federal civilian employees who are called from reserve status to active military duty “during a national emergency.” The reservist is entitled to differential pay as long as their service coincides with a national emergency. The reservist need not show they were called to active duty because of the national emergency.

Reyes v. Hi-Grade Materials Co. (CA4/1 D085178 4/29/25) PAGA | Death Knell Doctrine
The trial court denied Reyes’ motion for class certification. At the time of the denial, Reyes’ individual and representative claims under the Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) remained pending. A year later, Reyes voluntarily dismissed his PAGA claims without prejudice. Reyes then appealed the denial of class certification, invoking the “death knell” doctrine under which a class certification order is appealable if it is “tantamount to a dismissal of the action as to all members of the class other than plaintiff.” The appellate court held that Reyes’ dismissal of his PAGA claims did not retroactively make the class certification order appealable under the death knell doctrine.