Labor and Employment Law

Newly-Published Labor and Employment Cases

Magadia v. Wal-Mart Associates (9th Cir. 19-16184 5/28/21) Wage and Hour/PAGA/Meal Breaks & Wage Statements 
Plaintiff lacked Article III standing to bring California Private Attorneys General Act claim for meal break violations because he did not suffer injury himself. Plaintiff had standing to bring wage statement claims but court found wage statements complied with Labor Code section 226(a).
https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2021/05/28/19-16184.pdf

Usher v. White (CA4/1 D077133 5/28/21) Wage and Hour/Owner Liability 
Labor Code section 558.1 imposes liability on a business owner only when the owner is personally involved in the violations enumerated in section 558.1 or has sufficient participation in the employer’s activities such that the owner may be deemed to have contributed to the violations.
https://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/D077133.PDF

Franklin v. Cmty. Reg’l Med. Ctr. (9th Cir. 19-17570 5/21/21) Nonsignatory to Arbitration Agreement/Wage and Hour 
A hospital that was not a signatory to the arbitration agreement between a nurse and a staffing agency could compel arbitration of the nurse’s wage and hour claims against the hospital because her claims were “intimately founded in and intertwined with her contracts with the staffing agency,” and thus she was equitably estopped from avoiding the arbitration provisions of her employment contracts.
https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2021/05/21/19-17570.pdf

Walsh v. Browne (9th Cir. 20-15765 5/18/21) DOL Not Party to Arbitration Agreement 
The Secretary of Labor cannot be compelled to arbitrate a Fair Labor Standards Act enforcement action seeking relief on behalf of employees who had agreed to arbitrate employment-related claims against their employer.
https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2021/05/18/20-15765.pdf

Bruni v. The Edward Thomas Hospitality Corporation (CA2/3 B305689 5/14/21) Wrongful Termination in Violation of Public Policy
Alleged violation of a public policy expressed in a municipal ordinance does not support a claim for wrongful termination in violation of public policy under Tameny v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (1980) 27 Cal.3d 167.
https://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/B305689.PDF

City of Calexico v. Bergeson (CA4/1 D076963 5/13/21) Time to Appeal Judgment on Writ of Mandate
City’s cross-appeal was untimely because it was not filed within 60 days as required by California Rule of Court 8.104. The trial court’s order denying all relief on petitioner’s writ of mandate was a final judgment that was immediately appealable because it did not contemplate preparation of any further order or judgment. The trial court’s signing of the City’s proposed judgment two months after issuing its order did not restart the 60-day period.
https://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/D076963.PDF

Smith v. BP Lubricants USA Inc. (CA4/2 E073174 5/12/21) FEHA Harassment/Unruh Act/IIED 
Complaint alleged that a vendor’s representative made three race-based comments about the plaintiff while conducting a product training session for approximately 50 employees. Appellate court reversed dismissal of claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress and racial discrimination in violation of the Unruh Act, but affirmed dismissal of claim for harassment in violation of the Fair Employment and Housing Act.
https://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/E073174.PDF

Salazar v. See’s Candy Shops, Incorporated (CA2/2 B300778, filed 4/26/21, pub. ord. 5/10/21) Wage and Hour Class Certification 
Trial court properly denied certification of a class of employees who allegedly were denied second meal breaks when working shifts longer than 10 hours. Because the evidence in support of class certification showed that 24 percent of shifts longer than 10 hours actually included a second meal break, individual testimony would be necessary to show the employer consistently applied an unlawful practice of denying second meal breaks, and the putative class representative failed to provide a trial plan that would allow the employer to present its defenses without individual inquiry.
https://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/B300778.PDF

HJTA v. Cal. Secure Choice (9th Cir. 20-15591 5/6/21) No ERISA Preemption of CalSavers 
ERISA does not preempt a California law that creates CalSavers, a state-managed individual retirement account program for eligible employees of certain private employers that do not provide their employees with a tax-qualified retirement savings plan.
https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2021/05/06/20-15591.pdf

Forgot Password

Enter the email associated with you account. You will then receive a link in your inbox to reset your password.

Personal Information

Select Section(s)

CLA Membership is $99 and includes one section. Additional sections are $99 each.

Payment