Justia Labor & Employment Law Opinion Summaries

The case revolves around Arno Kuigoua, a registered nurse who was employed by the California Department of Veterans Affairs (the Department) at the Knight Veterans Home. Kuigoua was terminated in October 2018 after the Department found him guilty of sexually harassing women and providing substandard care that harmed patients. Kuigoua appealed his termination to the State Personnel Board, but his appeal was rejected. He then filed an administrative charge of employment discrimination with the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing and the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, alleging discrimination based on sex and retaliation.The Superior Court of Los Angeles County reviewed Kuigoua's case after he sued the Department in state court on state statutory claims. His complaint included allegations of unlawful gender, sex, and/or sexual orientation discrimination and harassment, unlawful race, color, and/or national origin discrimination and/or harassment, failure to prevent unlawful discrimination and/or harassment based on gender, sex, sexual orientation, race, color, and/or national origin, and retaliation based on gender, sex, sexual orientation, race, color, and/or national origin.The Court of Appeal of the State of California Second Appellate District Division Eight reviewed the case after Kuigoua appealed the judgment of the Superior Court. The court found that Kuigoua's claims in court were not like, and were not reasonably related to, those in his administrative complaint. The court also found that an administrative investigation would not have uncovered the conduct that was the focus of Kuigoua's operative complaint. As a result, the court affirmed the judgment of the Superior Court, ruling that Kuigoua failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. View "Kuigoua v. Dept. of Veteran Affairs" on Justia Law

The case involves an appeal by SaniSure, Inc., against a trial court's decision not to compel arbitration in a dispute with its former employee, Jasmin Vazquez. Vazquez initially worked for SaniSure from July 2019, and as part of her employment, she signed an agreement to resort to arbitration for any disputes that might arise from her employment. She eventually terminated this employment in May 2021. She returned to work for SaniSure four months later without signing any new arbitration agreement or discussing the application of the previous arbitration agreement to her new employment.Vazquez's second employment with SaniSure ended in July 2022. Later, she filed a class-action complaint alleging that SaniSure had failed to provide accurate wage statements during her second tenure. She also signaled her intent to add a derivative action under the Labor Code Private Attorney Generals Act (PAGA). SaniSure responded by submitting a “cure letter” claiming that its wage statements now comply with the Labor Code and requested that Vazquez submit her claims to binding arbitration, which Vazquez disputed.The Court of Appeal of the State of California Second Appellate District Division Six affirmed the trial court's denial of SaniSure’s motion to compel arbitration. The court found that SaniSure failed to show that Vazquez agreed to arbitrate claims arising from her second stint of employment. The court further concluded that there was no evidence of an implied agreement to arbitrate claims arising from the second employment period, as the agreement covering Vazquez’s first employment period terminated in May 2021. View "Vazquez v. SaniSure" on Justia Law

The appellant, Elinton Gramajo, was a pizza delivery driver for Joe's Pizza on Sunset, Inc. and other defendants, and sued them for Labor Code violations regarding unpaid minimum and overtime wages. After several years of litigation, a jury trial awarded Gramajo $7,659.93. Gramajo then requested attorney fees of $296,920 and costs of $26,932.84 under Labor Code section 1194(a), which allows prevailing employees to recover reasonable litigation costs, including attorney fees. The trial court, however, denied these requests, arguing that Gramajo’s counsel had excessively litigated the case, and that the requested fees and costs were disproportionately high compared to Gramajo’s limited trial success.On appeal, the Court of Appeal of the State of California Second Appellate District Division Eight disagreed with the trial court. The court held that employees who win actions for unpaid minimum and overtime wages are entitled to reasonable litigation costs under Labor Code section 1194(a), regardless of the amount recovered. The court stressed that Gramajo was entitled to his reasonable fees and costs, and remanded the case back to the trial court to determine a reasonable fee and cost award. The court did not express an opinion on the reasonableness of Gramajo’s requests for litigation costs. View "Gramajo v. Joe's Pizza on Sunset, Inc." on Justia Law

In California, the Public Employment Relations Board (PERB) found that the Kern County Hospital Authority violated the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act (MMBA), a law that governs labor relations in the public sector. The violation occurred when the Authority unilaterally decided it could reject collective grievances filed by the Service Employees International Union, Local 521 (SEIU), without giving the Union the opportunity to negotiate this policy change.The dispute centered on the interpretation of the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the Authority and SEIU. The Authority argued that the MOU only allowed individual employees to file grievances and did not explicitly permit collective grievances. Therefore, the Authority believed it had the right to reject any collective grievances.However, PERB ruled that the MOU was ambiguous on this point. PERB noted that while the MOU did not directly address collective grievances, it did contain a provision allowing for the consolidation of grievances. Furthermore, the MOU's language did not clearly and unambiguously exclude collective grievances. PERB found that the Authority's assertion that it could categorically reject collective grievances represented a new policy or a new interpretation of an existing policy, which amounted to a unilateral change in violation of the MMBA.Additionally, PERB rejected the Authority's argument that the Union had waived its right to bargain over this matter. PERB found that the Authority had not demonstrated that the Union knowingly and voluntarily relinquished its interest in collective grievances.As a result, PERB affirmed its earlier decision and denied the Authority's petition for writ of extraordinary relief. The Court of Appeal of the State of California Fifth Appellate District affirmed PERB's decision. View "Kern County Hospital Authority v. Public Employment Relations Bd." on Justia Law

The case involves Dr. Gopal Balakrishnan, a former tenured professor at the University of California, Santa Cruz (UCSC), who was dismissed and denied emeritus status following an investigation into allegations of sexual abuse. The allegations involved a fellow academic, identified as Jane Doe, who was sexually harassed by Balakrishnan at an off-campus academic event, and a UCSC student that Balakrishnan harassed after an off-campus graduation party. Balakrishnan appealed the University's decision, arguing that the University lacked jurisdiction to discipline him because the victims were not University students, that the University misinterpreted and misapplied its own regulations and policies, that he did not receive notice of all charges, and that the sanctions were excessive.The Court of Appeal of the State of California First Appellate District affirmed the trial court's judgment denying Balakrishnan's petition. The appellate court rejected the professor's jurisdiction argument, stating that the University's sexual harassment policy applied to both incidents. The court also found that the professor had notice of the charges against him. Lastly, the court held that the sanctions were not excessive given the severity of the professor's conduct. View "Balakrishnan v. The Regents of the University of Cal." on Justia Law

The plaintiff, Dana Hohenshelt, filed a lawsuit against his former employer, Golden State Foods Corp., alleging retaliation under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act, failure to prevent retaliation, and violations of the California Labor Code. Golden State moved to compel arbitration in accordance with their arbitration agreement, and the trial court granted the motion, staying court proceedings. Arbitration began, but Golden State failed to pay the required arbitration fees within the 30-day deadline. Hohenshelt then sought to withdraw his claims from arbitration and proceed in court, citing Golden State's failure to pay as a material breach of the arbitration agreement under California's Code of Civil Procedure section 1281.98. The trial court denied this motion, deeming Golden State's payment, which was made after the deadline but within a new due date set by the arbitrator, as timely.The Court of Appeal of the State of California Second Appellate District disagreed with the trial court's decision. It held that the trial court had ignored the clear language of section 1281.98, which states any extension of time for the due date must be agreed upon by all parties. Golden State's late payment constituted a material breach of the arbitration agreement, regardless of the new due date set by the arbitrator. The court also rejected Golden State's argument that section 1281.98 is preempted by the Federal Arbitration Act, following precedent from other courts that held these state laws are not preempted because they further the objectives of the Federal Arbitration Act. Therefore, the court granted Hohenshelt's petition for writ of mandate, directing the trial court to lift the stay of litigation. View "Hohenshelt v. Superior Court" on Justia Law

The case involves Nathan Jackson, a detention officer with the Los Angeles Police Department, who was suspended for 10 days due to several misconduct charges. These charges included reporting late for duty, reporting unfit for duty, leaving his post without authorization, and refusing to provide a doctor's note as directed. Jackson appealed his suspension to the Board of Civil Service Commissioners, which upheld the suspension. He then filed a petition for writ of administrative mandate in the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, asking the court to set aside his suspension and award him back pay.The superior court granted the petition in part, setting aside the suspension but upholding the findings on three of the four counts. The court also ordered the Board to reconsider whether the City's amendment of one of the counts after initial notice of proposed discipline prejudiced Jackson's defense and entitled him to back pay. The court also ordered the Board to reconsider the appropriate penalty.Jackson appealed the judgment, arguing that substantial evidence did not support the findings on any of the counts and that he was entitled to back pay as a matter of law. The Court of Appeal of the State of California, Second Appellate District, Division Seven, however, dismissed the appeal on the grounds that the superior court's judgment was not a final appealable judgment because it vacated the suspension and remanded the matter back to the Board for reconsideration, allowing Jackson an opportunity to challenge any ultimate adverse disciplinary action. View "Jackson v. Board of Civil Service Commissioners" on Justia Law

In this case, the Court of Appeal of the State of California Fourth Appellate District Division Three heard an appeal from Amanda Neeble-Diamond against a postjudgment order, awarding costs exceeding $180,000 to the prevailing defendant, Hotel California By the Sea. The original lawsuit involved both statutory and nonstatutory causes of action based on Neeble-Diamond's alleged employment status with Hotel California, which was determined by the jury to be that of an independent contractor, not an employee. Following this judgment, Hotel California sought costs and attorney fees. The trial court denied attorney fees but awarded costs, which led to Neeble-Diamond's appeal.The issue at hand was whether the trial court could award costs to the defendant without finding that the plaintiff's California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) claims were objectively frivolous. The appellate court agreed with Neeble-Diamond, reversing the order that awarded costs to Hotel California. The court highlighted that in FEHA cases, a prevailing defendant has no automatic right to recover costs. Instead, the defendant must move the court to make a discretionary award of such costs, based in part on a specific finding that the action was frivolous.Hotel California forfeited any claim to costs by failing to file the necessary motion for costs as they did for attorney fees, rendering their cost memorandum ineffective. As a result, Neeble-Diamond had no obligation to respond to the cost memorandum, and the court erred by signing an "amended judgment" that included an award of $180,369.41 in costs to Hotel California. View "Neeble-Diamond v. Hotel California By the Sea, LLC" on Justia Law

In a case heard before the Court of Appeal of the State of California Second Appellate District Division Five, Omar Kader, the plaintiff, sued his employer, Southern California Medical Center, Inc., and other defendants due to allegations of sexual harassment and assault. Kader had signed an arbitration agreement with his employer, but this was without disclosure of the ongoing sexual harassment and assault. After the enactment of the Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act (the Act), which invalidates predispute arbitration agreements under certain circumstances, Kader brought his suit.The defendants filed a motion to compel arbitration, arguing that the Act does not invalidate the arbitration agreement in this case since the alleged sexual conduct constituted a “dispute” which preexisted the arbitration agreement and the effective date of the Act.The court concluded that a dispute for the purposes of the Act does not arise merely from the fact of injury. Instead, for a dispute to arise, a party must first assert a right, claim, or demand. In this case, there was no evidence of a disagreement or controversy until after the date of the arbitration agreement and the effective date of the Act, when Kader filed charges with the Department of Fair Employment and Housing in May 2022. Therefore, the court held that the predispute arbitration agreement is invalid, and the order denying the motion to compel arbitration was affirmed. View "Kader v. Southern California Medical Center, Inc." on Justia Law

The case involves a dispute between Onecimo Sierra Suarez, an employee, and his employer, Rudolph & Sletten, Inc. (R&S), concerning the payment of arbitration fees. Suarez had initially sued his employer for alleged wage and hour violations. R&S successfully moved to have the case resolved through arbitration, as provided in their employment agreement. However, R&S delayed in paying its share of the initial arbitration fee, leading Suarez to argue that R&S has waived its right to arbitration. The Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District Division One, State of California held that the employer's delay in paying the arbitration fees constituted a material breach of the arbitration agreement, thereby waiving its right to arbitration. The court concluded that R&S's payment was late, even if certain provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure could potentially extend the deadline. The court also held that R&S's argument -- that the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) preempted California's arbitration-specific procedural rules for fee payment -- was incorrect. The court found that such rules neither prohibited nor discouraged the formation of arbitration agreements, and therefore, were not preempted by the FAA. The court granted Suarez's petition and ruled that the case should proceed in court. View "Suarez v. Super. Ct." on Justia Law