Menu

Showing 19 posts in California Court of Appeal.

California Court Expands Going and Coming Rule

Craig Schultz was a drafter for a civilian company that had several buildings located on a large U.S. Air Force base. He drove his personal vehicle onto the base and was permitted to travel around the base and use military vehicles in light of his employment with the civilian company. While driving to work one morning, and while on base, he suffered symptoms of his diabetes, which led to him flipping his car and sustaining severe injuries. Schultz filed a workers' compensation claim seeking benefits because his injury occurred on his employer's premises, and thus, he claimed he was injured in the course of his employment. California Court Expands Going and Coming Rule  More ›

California Court of Appeals Allows On-Call rest Breaks

In a striking move, the California Court of Appeals issued an unpublished opinion wherein it held that California law does not require employers to relieve employees of all duty during rest breaks. More ›

Hold the cellphone! Who pays if it’s work?

In an August 19, 2014, Daily Journal article, Hold the cellphone! Who pays if it’s work?, MichaelNewman writes about a recent California appellate opinion providing employers insight into how they should reimburse employees for work calls make on private cell phone lines.  Newman notes, however, that while on the surface Cochran v. Schwan’s Home Service Inc. provides a definitive rule, in reality it provides little guidance as to how employers should comply with it. More ›

Must Employers Reimburse Employees for work Calls on Private Cell Phones?

In Cochran v. Schwan’s Home Service, Inc., the California Court of Appeal for the Second Appellate District dealt with the question of whether employers are required to reimburse employees for work-related calls made on their personal cell phones. More ›

Employment Discrimination Plaintiff Cannot Change Legal Theories at Trial

In Rosenfeld v. Abraham Joshua Heschel Day School, Inc., the Second Appellate District held that a plaintiff whose pleadings alleged intentional employment discrimination could not assert a disparate impact theory for the first time at trial.

The case highlights the distinction between “disparate treatment” and “disparate impact” theories under California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”). Disparate treatment is intentional discrimination against an individual on prohibited grounds, such as race, sex or another protected category. More ›

Rite aid Cashiers can Proceed with Class Action

In Hall v. Rite Aid Corp., the Fourth Appellate District reversed the trial court’s decertification of a putative class of cashiers who challenged their employer’s policy of requiring them to stand while checking out customers.

The case is the latest in a series of California appellate opinions holding that a determination on class certification must focus on the plaintiff’s theory of liability — not the merits of the underlying allegations. More ›

Same Sex Harassment is Actionable, California Court of Appeal Affirms

In Lewis v. City of Benicia, the First Appellate District affirmed once again that in California, same-sex harassment is actionable.

Brian Lewis, a volunteer and later paid intern at the City of Benecia’s water treatment plan, claimed he was sexually harassed by two male supervisors (Hickman and Lantrip) in violation of the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), that he was subject to retaliation when he complained of the harassment, and that the City was liable for failing to prevent sexual harassment. More ›

California Restaurant Managers get Second Chance at Class Action

In Martinez v. Joe’s Crab Shack Holdings, the California Court of Appeal for the Second Appellate District reversed an order denying class certification to a group of managerial restaurant employees allegedly misclassified as exempt.

The case was brought by lower-level managers at Joe’s Crab Shack restaurants throughout California who complained that they performed many of the same tasks as hourly employees but did not qualify for overtime pay due to their managerial status. More ›

Arbitration Clause in Collective Bargaining Agreement Doesn’t Cover Statutory Claims, Court of Appeal Rules

In Mendez v. Mid-Wilshire Health Care Center, the California Court of Appeal for the Second Appellate District held that the arbitration provision in a collective bargaining agreement governing a plaintiff’s employment did not apply to statutory discrimination claims.

Plaintiff, Mendez, was a nurse’s assistant who filed a lawsuit against her employer, Mid-Wilshire, alleging several causes of action, including three statutory causes of action based on the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA). Mid-Wilshire filed a motion to compel arbitration and stay the action, arguing that all of Mendez’s claims were subject to the grievance and arbitration procedure set forth in the collective bargaining agreement between Mid-Wilshire and the union to which she was a member. More ›

Courts may Certify Class Claims Where Damages Differ

In Benton v. Telecom Network Specialists, Inc., the California Court of Appeal for the Second Appellate District affirmed that employee wage and hour and meal break cases may be suitable for class certification even where employees experience diverse damages.

The case supports the proposition that courts considering whether common issues predominate for class certification purposes must focus on plaintiffs’ theory of liability and not on whether class members will have to prove their damages individually. More ›

Blog Editors