Employment Law Observer

On Friday, March 12, 2021, the California Court of Appeal issued a ruling in Wilson v. The La Jolla Group that addresses the appropriate scope of class treatment for employee misclassification under Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. Superior Court. Dynamex—and its later enactment into statute in the form of AB 5—established the ABC test for determining independent contractor status.

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 

In a striking move, the California Court of Appeals issued an unpublished opinion wherein it held that California law does not require employers to relieve employees of all duty during rest breaks.

In an August 19, 2014, Daily Journal article, Hold the cellphone! Who pays if it’s work?, Michael Newman 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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

In Cho v. Chang, the California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District held that an employee’s statements to coworkers about alleged discrimination were not protected activities triggering special protection under California’s anti-SLAPP statute.

In MacDonald v. Superior Court, the court held that an employee must exhaust statutory administrative remedies before filing suit against an employer.

In Wade v. Ports America Management Corp., the California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District held that an arbitration award, pursuant to a collective bargaining agreement, had res judicata effect on a plaintiff’s subsequent common law racial discrimination claim.

In Harris v. Bingham McCutchen, the California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District held that the drafter of an adhesion contract could not avoid the contract’s choice-of-law provision in determining the enforceability of an arbitration provision.

In Daily v. Sears, the Fourth Appellate District, Division One, affirmed the trial court’s granting of the defendant’s motion to preclude class certification.

In Sanchez v. Swissport, the California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, determined that an employee who has exhausted all permissible leave available under the Pregnancy Disability Leave Law (PDLL), Gov. Code 12945, can also state a cause of action under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), Gov. Code 12900 et seq.

Avidor v. Sutter’s Place, Inc., decided January 23, 2013, California Court of Appeal, Sixth Appellate District, involved a class action brought on behalf of card dealers employed by Sutter’s Place, a casino.

In a decision that could have an enormous impact on employers, a federal appeals court has ruled that President Barrack Obama violated the Constitution when he appointed three members to the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”) without Senate approval.