Newly-Published Labor and Employment Cases

Monster Energy Company v. Schechter (SC S251392 7/11/19) Settlement Agreements/Attorneys’ Confidentiality Obligations (applicable to employment settlements).  Attorneys may have been bound by the contractual confidentiality obligation in a settlement agreement when they approved it as to form and content and body of agreement referenced that they would be bound. 

Scott v. City of San Diego (CA4/1 D074061 8/1/19) Prevailing FEHA Defendant/998 Offer.  Retroactively applying FEHA cost provision prohibiting the recovery of costs, notwithstanding section 998 of the Code of Civil Procedure, against a plaintiff asserting a non-frivolous FEHA claim notwithstanding section 998. 

L’Chaim House, Inc. v. Div. of Labor Standards Enforcement (CA1/1 A152975 7/31/19) Meal Breaks/Wage Order 5.  On-duty meal periods under Wage Order 5 must be at least 30 minutes long. 

Hollingsworth v. Superior Court (CA2/4 B297658 7/24/19) Exclusive Jurisdiction/Workers’ Compensation.  The tribunal – the superior court or the workers’ compensation appeals board – that assumes jurisdiction first determines which tribunal has exclusive jurisdiction. 

Severson & Werson v. Sephery-Fard (CA6 H045161 7/24/19) Workplace Violence.  5 days’ notice under section 527.8 is jurisdictional and made subsequent court orders issued on less than 5 days’ notice void. 

Townley v. BJ’s Restaurants, Inc. (CA3 C086672, filed 6/4/19, pub. ord. 7/8/19) Reimbursement of Slip-Resistant Shoes.  Determining that section 2802 of the Labor Code did not require the employer to reimburse the cost of slip-resistant shoes for restaurant employees.