This was a class action alleging claims of misclassification brought under various provisions of the California Labor Code, as well as conversion and unfair competition, claiming that certain business bankers were misclassified. Defendant U.S. Bank claimed that the employees were properly
Appellate Court Upholds Trial Court’s Ruling That Arbitration Provision Is Unconscionable
In Mayers v. Volt Management Corp, the Court of Appeals ruled that an arbitration agreement was unconscionable. There, Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against his former employer alleging several claims under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”). The Defendant filed a motion to compel
U.S. Supreme Court Protects Religious Organization From Suit By Former Teacher
In Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 132 S. Ct. 694 (2012), the United States Supreme Court ruled in favor a religious organization being sued by a former teacher. There, a former employee filed a charge with the E.E.O.C. claiming that
Court Upholds Invalidation of Pre-Employment Arbitration Clause
In Wisdom v. AccentCare, Inc. 202 Cal.App.4th 591, (2012), the Court held that an arbitration agreement found in a pre-employment application was both procedurally and substantively unconscionable. The Court held that the arbitration provision was procedurally unconscionable “because its language
Employee Of Independent Contractor Cannot Sue The Company That Hired The Independent Contractor
In SeaBright Insurance Co. v. US Airways, Inc., the California Supreme Court held that an employee of an independent contractor who was injured in the workplace could not sue the party that hired the contractor company to do the work, even when this party failed to comply with workplace safety
No Interference With California Family Rights Act If Employee Does Not Return Within 12 Weeks
In Rogers v. County of Los Angeles, the Court of Appeals held that an employee cannot pursue a claim for interference with her rights under the California Family Rights Act (“CFRA”) if she is out on leave more than 12 weeks. There, the plaintiff, Rogers, worked for the County for 36 years, the
“Me Too” Evidence Permitted In Wrongful Termination Case
In Pantoja v. Anton, the Court was asked to decide whether the trial court erred in not allowing the jury to hear “me too” evidence, that is, evidence of the employer’s alleged gender bias in the form of harassing activity against women employees other than the plaintiff. In particular, the “me too”
Employees May Recover 2 Hours Of Premium Pay Per Day If The Employer Denies Them Both Meal Breaks and Rest Periods
In UPS v. Superior Court (Los Angeles), the California Court of Appeal held that Labor Code section 226.7 permits up to two premium payments per work day. There, UPS was sued by numerous employees who were seeking compensation for UPS’s alleged failure to provide meal breaks and rest periods