In Harris v. City of Santa Monica, the CA Supreme Court ruled that an employer could be liable under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) if that employer took “adverse employment action” against an employee and unlawful discrimination was a “substantial factor motivating” that action. However, the Court also ruled that an employer can escape… Read More
Posts Tagged With: CA Supreme Court
CA Supreme Court Depublishes Two Post-Brinker Opinions
Following the CA Supreme Court’s long-awaited decision in Brinker last year, which I blogged about here, California’s lower courts were left to resolve the numerous meal and rest break cases that were ordered held pending the resolution of Brinker. Two of these cases received an extraordinary amount of press coverage, and both were ultimately decided in favor of California employers…. Read More
CA Supreme Court Grants Review in Paratransit, Inc. v. Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board
Back in June 2012, I wrote a blog post about the Court of Appeal’s decision in Paratransit, Inc. v. Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board, 206 Cal. App. 4th 1312 (2012). In Paratransit, the California Court of Appeal held that an employee’s refusal to sign a performance review or disciplinary action form constituted “misconduct” justifying the denial… Read More
California Supreme Court Issues Long-Awaited Brinker Decision Clarifying Employers’ Meal and Rest Break Obligations
On April 12, 2012, a unanimous California Supreme Court ruled in Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Superior Court that employers are not required to police their employees and ensure that employees actually take their 30-minute meal breaks. The Court also ruled that employers are not required to provide 10-minute rest breaks before meal breaks. The Brinker… Read More
Court Sets Brinker Oral Argument for November 8, 2011
On October 4, 2011, the California Supreme Court announced that it would hear oral argument in the long-awaited and much-anticipated meal and rest break case, Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Superior Court [i] on November 8, 2011. The Issue in Brinker The fundamental question before the California Supreme Court in Brinker is whether California employers must ensure… Read More
Employment Arbitration Agreements After Sonic Calabasas v. Moreno
On February 24, 2011, a divided California Supreme Court ruled in Sonic Calabasas A, Inc. v. Moreno, S174475, that a worker who signs an otherwise valid pre-employment arbitration agreement does not give up his statutory right to seek administrative relief through Labor Commissioner hearings. In other words, even if that worker signed a mandatory arbitration… Read More
Recording Customers’ Zip Codes Violates California’s Song-Beverly Credit Card Act
On February 10, 2011, the California Supreme Court ruled in Pineda v. Williams-Sonoma Stores, Inc., S178241, that a customer’s ZIP code is “personal identification information” under California’s Song-Beverly Credit Card Act[1] of 1971. Therefore, retailers in California cannot ask a customer to provide a ZIP code at purchase without violating California law. The Court’s Ruling… Read More
CA Supreme Court Rules that Employees Cannot Sue for “Tip Pooling” Violations
On August 9, 2010, the California Supreme Court gave restaurant and other hospitality employers a victory in Lu v. Hawaiian Gardens, 50 Cal. 4th 592 (2010), by holding that California Labor Code Section 351 does not contain a private right to sue. Therefore, a tipped employee in California cannot sue his employer in court for… Read More