In McCormick v. California Public Employees’ Retirement System, the Court held that employees are eligible for a disability retirement under the California Public Employees’ Retirement System due to a disability, when they can no longer perform their usual duties at the only location where
In National Labor Relations Board v. International Association of Bridge, Structural Ornamental, and Reinforcing Iron Workers, the Court enforced the National Labor Relations Board’s (NLRB) order to a union. The union had induced/encouraged others “to engage in a strike or a refusal to perform work
In Jimenez v. U.S. Continental Marketing Inc., the Court examined if a staffing agency employer, as well as the contracting company using the worker, can be held liable as an employer. Plaintiff sued her contracting employer, USCM, and her direct employer, a staffing agency. She asserted
The Dynamex “ABC” Test Applies To All Claims That Seek To Enforce Protections Under The Wager Orders, Including Labor Code Claims; It Is Also Retroactive.
In Gonzales v. San Gabriel Transit, the Court discussed the retroactive nature of the recently adopted "ABC" test. In Dynamex Operations West v. Superior Court, the California Supreme Court adopted the test to determine if a worker is an employee or independent contractor. The Court held that the
In Henderson v. Equilon Enterprises, the Court clarified which employment test applied to which situation. The Court noted that the ABC test adopted by the California Supreme Court in Dynamex Operations West v. Superior Court addresses claims that workers have been misclassified as independent
In Nejadian v. County of Los Angeles, the Court looked at the standard for prevailing on a retaliation claim. A jury found in favor of plaintiff against his employer, defendant County of Los Angeles, on his causes of action for retaliation in violation of Labor Code section 1102.5, and for
In Salazar v. McDonald’s Corporation, the Court held that a franchisor (McDonald’s) cannot be classified as an employer of its franchisees’ workers, and also is not an agent of a franchisee who can be held liable for wage-and-hour violations under an ostensible-agency theory. The plaintiff class