A recent California Court of Appeal decision reminds employers that discrimination and harassment cases can produce substantial emotional distress awards – even where the employee did not seek mental health treatment or present expert testimony concerning his or her mental or emotional condition. In Glick v. City of…
Two recent cases explain the risks that arise when clients use AI to address legal issues.
When an employer fails to pay an employee at least the minimum wage for all hours worked, current California law allows the employee to sue the employer and collect the minimum wages owed plus an additional amount known as “liquidated damages” equal to the amount of minimum wages…
Yesterday, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously held in Ames v. Ohio Dept. of Youth Services that white, heterosexual, and other “majority group” employees are not required to meet a heightened standard in order to prove illegal employment discrimination. This decision puts majority group plaintiffs on the same legal…
A California federal court in Lacey v. State Farm recently issued a dramatic example of the consequences to lawyers and their clients of trusting artificial intelligence. In what the court described as a “collective debacle,” a large team of high-profile attorneys submitted a brief with faulty – hallucinatory…
In a recent ruling, the California Court of Appeals in Rodriguez v. Packers Sanitation Service, Ltd. allowed an employee who had signed a mandatory employment agreement to avoid having to arbitrate his PAGA claim. The Court’s reasoning was that, by pleading his PAGA claim as a representative claim…
California’s Private Attorneys General Act (“PAGA”) deputizes any employee who has experienced a violation of virtually any state employment law to sue to recover penalties arising out of violations he or she experienced – plus penalties arising out of violations committed against every one of his or her…
The California legislature is notoriously hostile to mandatory arbitration agreements in the employment context. That’s because the legislature believes employers have more negotiating power than employees; thus, the arbitration agreements that employers give to employees often have one-sided terms that heavily favor the employer. The employee often feels…
Earlier today, for the first time in over 25 years, the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) updated its enforcement guidance on unlawful workplace harassment. Though not legally binding, this new guidance makes clear how the EEOC will enforce federal anti-harassment laws under the current administration. The…
Last week, in Jones vs. Riot Hospitality Group LLC, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of a plaintiff’s employment discrimination suit because the plaintiff was found to have destroyed evidence. During the litigation in the trial court, the employer became concerned that the plaintiff had…