Labor and Employment eNews

Bailey alleged that a co-worker used a racial slur against her and that when she reported the incident, the human resources manager obstructed the filing of a formal complaint, engaged in a course of intimidating conduct, and threatened Bailey that she was “going to get it.” The Court held that a co-worker’s one-time use of a racial slur may be actionable harassment under the Fair Employment and Housing Act if it is sufficiently severe in light of the totality of the circumstances. The Court further held that a course of conduct that effectively seeks to withdraw an employee’s means of reporting and addressing racial harassment in the workplace is actionable as a retaliation claim under FEHA. Read more

Bristol SL Holdings v. CIGNA Health & Life (9th Cir. 23-55019 5/31/24) ERISA Affirming summary judgment for defendants, the court held that the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 preempted claims that a health plan administrator’s denial of reimbursements violated state law. Read more

Article XVI, section 18, subdivision (a) of the California Constitution sets forth the constitutional debt limitation applicable to cities: “No . . . city . . . shall incur any indebtedness or liability in any manner or for any purpose exceeding in any year the income and revenue provided for such year, without the assent of two-thirds of the voters of the public entity voting at an election to be held for that purpose.” The City Council adopted a resolution authorizing the issuance and sale of bonds to address unfunded liabilities in the City’s pension plans. The Taxpayers Association challenged the resolution, claiming it violated the constitutional debt limitation. The court held the City’s action did not trigger the debt limitation because under the resolution bonds may be issued only if they result in savings to the city. Read more

Alameda Health System is one of seven public entities that contract with the Alameda County Employees Retirement Association to provide retirement benefits to their employees. Read more

Code of Civil Procedure §1281.98 provides that if arbitration fees or costs “are not paid within 30 days after the due date, the drafting party is in material breach of the arbitration agreement, is in default of the arbitration, and waives its right to compel the employee or consumer to proceed with that arbitration as a result of the material breach.” Effective January 1, 2022, the Legislature amended §1281.98 to include a new sentence in subdivision (a)(2): “Any extension of time for the due date shall be agreed upon by all parties.” Hohenshelt’s former employer Read more

An employee signed an arbitration agreement with his employer in the regular course of his employment, without disclosing that he was being subjected to sexual harassment and assault. Read more

Erhart, an internal auditor, copied, transmitted and retained various documents he claimed showed his employer’s possible wrongdoing. Read more

n awarding attorney fees, a court may apply, in its discretion, a positive or negative multiplier to adjust the lodestar calculation—a reasonable rate times a reasonable number of hours—to account for various factors, including attorney skill. Read more

September 2023 Barrera v. Apple American Group LLC (CA1/2 A165445 8/31/23) Post-Adolph PAGA Arbitration  The court reversed in part and affirmed in part the trial court’s order denying defendants’ motion to compel arbitration of claims under the Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (Lab. Code, § 2698 et seq.) Based on Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana (2022) 596 U.S. ___ Read more

Boermeester v. Carry (SC S263180 per curiam 7/31/23) Private Universities’ Title IX Hearings. When investigating and disciplining students accused of sexual misconduct or intimate partner violence under title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, private universities are required to comply with the common law doctrine of fair procedure by providing accused students with notice of the charges and a meaningful opportunity to be heard. Read more