Light v. California Department of Parks & Recreation

The trial court improperly granted summary judgment to employer defendant on employee plaintiff’s claim of FEHA-prohibited retaliation for supporting a co-worker’s complaint of sex discrimination, after she provided sufficient evidence of (1) adverse employment actions and (2) retaliatory motive.  The trial court improperly granted summary judgment to defendant on plaintiff’s claim of retaliation in violation…

Mendoza v. Nordstrom, Inc.

Suits under the Private Attorney Act are unlike class actions in that plaintiffs cannot belatedly add new plaintiffs to carry on the suit in place of the original named plaintiffs, if it turns out the original plaintiffs’ claims fail.  After receiving the California Supreme Court’s answers to certified questions, the Ninth Circuit dismisses this day-of-rest…

Esparza v. KS Industries, L.P.

Claims for statutory damages or penalties payable to individual employees are arbitrable; only Private Attorney General Act claims for civil penalties payable to the state are not arbitrable.  Under Iskanian v. CLS Transportation Los Angeles, LLC (2014) 59 Cal.4th 348, only claims that are brought on behalf of the state under PAGA and seek civil…

Williams v. Superior Court

In a Private Attorney General Act suit, the plaintiff is entitled, as a matter of course, to discovery of identification information of all employees affected by the employer’s alleged violations of wage and hour laws.  At the very outset of this PAGA suit, the plaintiff employee sought to compel the employer to provide a list…

Minnick v. Automotive Creations, Inc.

When an employer’s policy states that an employee does not begin to earn vacation pay until after a full year’s employment, the employer does not owe an employee any vacation pay if employment is terminated less than a year after the date of initial employment.  Following Owen v. Macy’s, Inc. (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 462, this…

Kao v. Holiday

A foreign national who was invited to the US to work for defendant was not an “intern” or “trainee” during the 11 months he worked before securing a green card, because the work he did consisted of typical work tasks rather than education; so he was entitled to minimum wages under both federal and state…

Kizer v. Tristar Risk Management

Trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying class certification in this suit for overtime compensation by claims examiners, since plaintiff had not shown that it could prove, by common evidence, that all of the claims examiners in the proposed class actually worked overtime; hence there was no preponderance of common issues.  The trial…

Espejo v. Copley Press, Inc.

Newspaper home delivery carriers were properly found to be employees, covered by Labor Code wage, hour, and expense reimbursement provisions, not independent contractors.  Substantial evidence supported the trial court’s finding that newspaper home delivery carriers were employees, not independent contractors, for purposes of Labor Code wage, hour, and expense reimbursement provisions.  The newspaper controlled how…

McKeen-Chaplin v. Provident Savings Bank

Bank’s home loan underwriter was not an exempt “administrative” employee for purposes of the Fair Labor Standards Act and hence was entitled to overtime compensation.  An employee who underwrote mortgage loans for Provident Savings Bank was not an exempt “administrative” employee, and so was entitled to overtime compensation under the FLSA. The issuance of the loans…

Bayer v. Neiman Marcus Group, Inc.

District court erred in dismissing plaintiff’s employment discrimination suit even though it had become moot, since plaintiff could still receive nominal damages and have his dignity interest vindicated even though he no longer worked for employer.  After waiting six years for the EEOC to issue a right to sue letter, plaintiff sued Neiman Marcus for…

Husman v. Toyota Motor Credit Corp.

Employee’s introduction of evidence of discriminatory remarks by an upper-level supervisor should have enabled him to survive summary judgment on his claim for discriminatory termination due to his sexual orientation, even though employer also introduced evidence of a non-pretextual non-discriminatory motive as well; mixed motives do not absolve the employer.  The trial court erred in…

Arias v. Raimondo

An employee may sue his employer’s outside counsel for conspiring with Immigration & Customs Enforcement to have him deported as an unregistered alien in retaliation for his having filed suit against the employer alleging a violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.  The Fair Labor Standards Act’s anti-retaliation section 29 USC 215(a)(3) makes it illegal…