California Court of Appeal

Subscribe to California Court of Appeal via RSS

In Harris v. City of Santa Monica, 56 Cal. 4th 203 (Cal. 2013), the California Supreme Court ruled that, to prevail in a mixed motive employment discrimination action, the employee must show that unlawful discrimination was a substantial factor motivating the adverse employment decision.  Further, in mixed motive cases, if the employer proves that…

Most litigation over whether employees are classified properly as exempt from overtime turns on whether employees spend the majority of their work time performing exempt duties. However, employers should not forget the salary basis requirement. In Negri v. Koning & Associates, No. H037804 (Cal. Ct. App. May 16, 2013), the California Court of Appeal…

California law prohibits “use it or lose it” vacation policies and, under Section 227.3 of the California Labor Code, requires all accrued vacation to be paid on termination of employment, “unless otherwise provided by a collective bargaining agreement.” Examining the meaning of the collective bargaining exception for the first time, the California Court of Appeal…

While employees continue to challenge binding arbitration agreements with gusto, California courts have shown a consistent willingness to enforce agreements where fundamental fairness exists. In Serpa v. California Surety Investigations, Inc., No. B237363 (Cal. Ct. App. Apr. 19, 2013), a California Court of Appeal reversed a trial court order denying the employer’s motion to…

Employees often attempt to prove discrimination by offering evidence that other, similar employees were subject to the same treatment, often referred to as “me too” evidence. The California Court of Appeal rejected an employee’s attempt to use “me too” evidence when the employee sought to introduce evidence showing how employees outside his protected class were…

Class certification is unwarranted where auto center managers and assistant managers alleged they were improperly classified as exempt and denied overtime and meal and rest breaks in violation of the California Labor Code, the California Court of Appeal has ruled in Dailey v. Sears, Roebuck and Co.Statistical Sampling Could Not Establish Liability in Wage-Hour …

The California Court of Appeal has held in a case under the California False Claims Act (FCA) that California’s Rules of Professional Conduct, generally prohibiting an attorney, directly or indirectly, from communicating with a represented party, including the party’s employees, did not apply to prohibit communications between two qui tam plaintiffs and the defendant-employer’s current…

 A California court of appeal has recently ruled that an employee is not protected by the Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”) for refusing to participate in or cooperate with a Company investigation into misconduct. McGrory v. Applied Signal Tech., Inc., (Cal Ct. App. No. H036597, 1/24/2013). In McGrory, California’s Sixth Appellate District rejected …