Earlier today, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of a pregnant woman on her claim that her employer discriminated against her on account of her pregnancy. The case, entitled Young v. United Parcel Service, Inc., involved a pregnant UPS worker whose doctor recommended that she not life heavy objects while pregnant. When the employee requested… Read More
Posts Categorized In: Employment Litigation
Court Invalidates Wage Order Meal Period Waiver Rules for Healthcare Employees
Wage Orders 4 and 5 have long permitted employees in the “healthcare industry” who work longer than 8 hours in a day to voluntarily waive one of their two meal periods. However, on February 10, 2015, California’s Fourth Circuit Court of Appeal ruled in Gerard v. Orange Coast Memorial Medical Center that these provisions of… Read More
CA Supreme Court Rules Employee Can Sue Employer and Collect Damages Even Though Employee Used Fraudulent Social Security Number to Get Hired
Yesterday, the California Supreme Court ruled in Salas v. Sierra Chemical Co. that an employee who uses a false Social Security number to fraudulently obtain his job may still sue his employer for discrimination and recover damages. At issue was whether a California state statute granting employment law rights to all California residents “regardless of immigration… Read More
CA Supreme Court Upholds Class Action Waivers
In 2007, the California Supreme Court ruled in Gentry v. Superior Court that class action waivers in employment arbitration agreements are invalid under certain circumstances. Four years later, however, the United States Supreme Court reached a seemingly opposite conclusion in AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, holding that “requiring the availability of classwide arbitration interferes with fundamental… Read More
U.S. Supreme Court Expands Whistleblower Liability
The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (“SOA”) included protections for whistleblowers at public companies. Section 806 of the SOA states that no publicly-traded company, or any officer, employee, contractor, subcontractor, or agent of such public company, may discharge, demote, suspend, threaten, harass, or in any other manner discriminate against an employee for whistleblowing or engaging in other protected activities…. Read More
Can an Employee Who Uses Fake Social Security Card to Get Hired Later Sue for Discrimination?
Well, we’re going to have the answer to that question soon from the California Supreme Court. The case is entitled Salas v. Sierra Chemical (Case Number S196558). The issue in Salas is whether an employee’s claims for discrimination under California’s FEHA can be dismissed on grounds of “after-acquired evidence” and “unclean hands” when that employee provided… Read More
Ninth Circuit Approves $697,972 in Attorneys’ Fees on Jury Award of $27,280
In Muniz v. United Parcel Services, Inc., the Ninth Circuit ruled that the district court did not abuse its discretion in awarding the prevailing plaintiff $697,972 in attorneys’ fees where the jury awarded her only $27,280 in damages on a single FEHA claim. UPS brought the appeal and claimed that the lower court abused its… Read More
Governor Brown Signs SB 462 Limiting Attorneys’ Fees to Employers
Existing California law (Labor Code §218.5) awards attorneys’ fees to the successful party in any action brought to recover unpaid wages, fringe benefits, or pension fund contributions. Thus, if an employee brings an action to recover unpaid wages and wins, that employee gets his attorneys’ fees paid by the employer in addition to recovering the wages… Read More
U.S. Supreme Court Makes Retaliation Cases Harder to Prove
Yesterday, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its long-awaited ruling in University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center v. Nassar. The issue in that case was whether a plaintiff alleging illegal retaliation under Title VII against her employer had to show but-for causation (i.e., that the employer would not have taken the adverse employment action but for its… Read More
U.S. Supreme Court Puts New Limits on Harassment Claims under Title VII
Back in 1998, the U.S. Supreme Court announced two important decisions that clarified the scope of an employer’s liability for workplace sexual harassment under Title VII. These two cases are Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775 (1998), and Burlington Industries, Inc. v. Ellerth, 524 U.S. 742 (1998), and they announced the rule that continues… Read More