In Safeway Wage and Hour Cases, the Court held that an employment task does not become exempt merely because the manager undertakes it in order to contribute to the smooth functioning of the store. This was a case in a series of cases in which former managers of Safeway supermarket stores
Religious Organizations Liable For Clear Retaliation
In Mathews v. Happy Valley Conference Center, Inc., the Court upheld a jury verdict against a religious institution for illegal employment practices. Plaintiff Jeremiah Mathews worked as a maintenance supervisor and a cook for defendant Happy Valley Conference Center, Inc., which hosts seminars,
A Mistaken Application Of A Company Policy Can Still Support A Claim For Disability Discrimination
In Glynn v. Superior Court (Allergan), the Court looked at the corporate mindset when firing an employee. There, a temporary corporate benefits staffer mistakenly thought an employee had transitioned from short term disability (STD) to long term disability (LTD) and was unable to work with or
Claims Are Timely Under The FEHA If There Are Continuing Violations
In Carroll v. City and County of San Francisco, the Court held that an unlawful employment practice occurred each time a worker received an allegedly discriminatory disability retirement check, such that a new limitations period applies to each allegedly discriminatory check. Plaintiff was 43 years
Employees Are Eligible For Disability Benefits Under CalPERS When They Cannot Work At Permitted Location
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
NLRB Has Authority To Force A Union To Stop Anti-Competition
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
Court Outlines Test For When For A Contracting Company and Staffing Agency Are Liable To A Worker
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