Employment

In Voris v. Lampert, the California Supreme Court held that an employee cannot generally assert a conversion claim based on the nonpayment of wages.  The Court stated that the conversion claim was a claim that was often brought by plaintiffs in employment cases, but the law was not clear on whether

In Mejia v. Merchants Building Maintenance, the Court addressed whether a court may split a single PAGA claim so as to require a representative employee to arbitrate that aspect of the claim in which the plaintiff seeks to recover the portion of the  penalty that represents the amount

In Dawson v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, the Ninth Circuit held that Division I college football players are not employees of the National Collegiate Athletic Association and the PAC-12 Conference within the meaning of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The plaintiff was a player at USC and

In L’Chaim House, Inc. v. Division of Labor Standards Enforcement, the Court held that Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Order No. 5 requires that an employer provide employees with meal periods of at least 30 minutes, regardless of whether they are on-duty or off-duty.  The corporate defendant

In Townley v. BJ’S Restaurants, Inc., the Court of Appeal confirmed that Labor Code §2802 does not require an employer to reimburse its employees for the cost of slip-resistant shoes as necessary expenditures incurred by the employees in direct consequence of the discharge of their duties.  There,

In Beckington v. American Airlines, Inc., the Court held that employees could not sue their union for colluding with the employer under the circumstances.  The Court noted that the Railway Labor Act authorized employees in the railroad and airline industries to select a union to act as their

In Ross v. County of Riverside, the Court made clear that an employee suing on Labor Code Sec. 1102.5 for whistleblower retaliation was not required to jump through hoops as argued by the employer.  The Court found that a prosecutor (the employee) established a viable claim that he engaged in a

In Fort Bend County v. Davis, the United States Supreme Court held that charge-filing requirement in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is a non-jurisdictional claim-processing rule, subject to forfeiture.  The Court first discussed the general law, noting that Title VII of the Civil