Photo of Cary G. Palmer

Cary G. Palmer

Subscribe to Cary G. Palmer's Posts

Cary G. Palmer is a principal in the Sacramento, California, office of Jackson Lewis P.C. He represents management in employment, labor and benefits law and related litigation. Cary has extensive class action experience. He also mediates class actions.

Cary practices before the state and federal courts in California, the United States Department of Labor, the United States Equal Opportunity Commission, the California Civil Rights Department, the California Division of Labor Standards Enforcement, and the California Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board. He also defends management in statewide and nationwide class action and collective action litigation. Cary also defends management in litigation involving wrongful termination, reductions in force, discrimination, harassment, breach of contract, wage and hour, benefits, and other labor and employment-related actions. He also conducts employee and management training seminars, and provides proactive employment advice and counsel.

Contact:Read more about Cary G. Palmer

The Second Appellate District of California recently held that a third party must comply with a subpoena requesting data in a format different than the manner in which the data was maintained where the requesting party offered to pay the reasonable cost of translating the data into the requested form.  In Daniel Vasquez v. California School of Culinary Arts, Inc., the appeal was between plaintiffs in a putative class action, and third party, Sallie Mae, Inc.  Sallie Mae was previously involved in the litigation, but had been dismissed from the action at the time of the subpoena in question.  The case involved a putative class action of culinary students who sought records of their student loans from Sallie Mae.
Continue Reading Data Production in Different Form than Maintained was Required Where Requesting Party Offered to Pay Reasonable Cost Under Pre-2013 Employment Records Subpoena

In a case of first impression, Patterson v. Domino’s Pizza, LLC (Cal. Aug. 28, 2014) [124 FEP Cases 994], the California Supreme Court concludes franchising does not automatically create an employment or agency relationship with a franchisor for purposes of holding it vicariously liable for the sexual harassment of a franchisee store’s employee by her supervisor. In a 4-3 opinion authored by Justice Baxter, the Supreme Court holds a franchisor becomes potentially liable for the actions of a franchisee’s employees only if it has retained control over “relevant day-to-day aspects of workplace behavior” of the franchisee’s employees.

Factual Background

The plaintiff Taylor Patterson, a former pizza store employee, brought a sexual harassment lawsuit against her male supervisor, franchisee Sui Juris LLC (solely owned by Daniel Poff) and franchisor Domino’s Pizza, LLP (“Domino’s”). Patterson asserted the franchisor was the “employer” of persons working for the franchisee and the franchisee was the “agent” of the franchisor, arguing the franchisor could be held vicariously liable for her harasser’s alleged breach of statutory and tort law. Plaintiff argued the store manager Rene Miranda sexually harassed her whenever they shared the same shift. He made lewd comments and gestures, and grabbed her breasts and buttocks. After he refused to stop, Patterson reported the problem to her father and to Poff. Patterson stayed away from work for one week, and then returned. She soon resigned. She perceived that her hours were reduced in retaliation for reporting sexual harassment.
Continue Reading California Supreme Court Finds Franchisor Not Vicariously Liable for Sexual Harassment

An amendment to the California data breach notification statute requires companies that experience a data breach to include information in the notification that if identity theft prevention and mitigation services are provided, they must be provided for at least 12 months to affected persons at no cost if the breach exposed or may have exposed certain personal information. This is the first time any state has imposed such mandates. The new law, AB 1710, signed by Governor Jerry Brown on September 30, 2014, also expands the application of safeguard requirements for personal information and further prohibits certain uses and disclosures of Social Security numbers. The new law becomes effective January 1, 2015.

New Identity Theft, Credit Monitoring Notification Mandates

Currently, California and 46 other states require entities that own or license certain personal information to notify individuals whose personal information has been involved in a data breach. No state has broadly required entities with a breach notification obligation to provide credit monitoring services or “identity theft prevention and mitigation services” to affected persons. Of course, many companies have provided such services, and State Attorneys General have urged businesses to extend such services.
Continue Reading California Becomes First State to Require Credit Monitoring Services Information Following a Data Breach

San Francisco Bay employers with 50 or more full-time employees within the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (“Air District”) were required to register and offer commuter benefits to their employees as of yesterday. Violators are subject to civil penalties for the enforcement of air pollution control laws under the California Health and Safety Code, including penalties up to $10,000 per day. Employers may register online at https://commuterbenefits.511.org/.

Commuter benefits are intended to encourage employees to take transit, vanpool, carpool, bicycle and walk, rather than drive alone to work. 
Continue Reading The San Francisco Bay Area Commuter Benefits Program Starts Today!