Justia Labor & Employment Law Opinion Summaries

Plaintiff-appellant Robert Hughes, a retired sheriff’s deputy, had his case dismissed when the trial court sustained without leave to amend the demurrer to his amended petition for writ of mandate and administrative mandate. Hughes sought to compel the County of San Bernadino to complete the administrative appeal process of a disciplinary action. Hughes initiated the administrative appeal under the County’s civil service rules, but missed the scheduled hearing after suffering a heart attack. Hughes retired for medical reasons before the hearing could be rescheduled. The County declined to reschedule after Hughes retired, arguing he was no longer an employee entitled to an administrative appeal. Defendant San Bernardino Civil Service Commission (the CSC), after requesting briefing from Hughes and the County, ruled that it had no jurisdiction to continue with the appeal. After review, the Court of Appeal concluded Hughes was entitled to complete his administrative appeal as provided in the County's Personnel Rules. The trial court's order was reversed and the case remanded with directions to enter a new order overruling the County’s demurrer. View "Hughes v. County of San Bernardino" on Justia Law

Case voluntarily enrolled in a three-year, employer-sponsored educational program, agreeing, in writing that if he quit his job within 30 months of completing the program, he would reimburse his employer, UPI, a prorated portion of program costs. Two months after completing the program, Case went to work for another employer. He refused to reimburse UPI, which sued for breach of contract and unjust enrichment. Case cross-complained, asserting the reimbursement agreement was unenforceable and UPI violated the Labor Code and other statutory provisions in seeking reimbursement. The trial court granted UPI summary judgment on both its complaint and Case’s cross-complaint, and subsequently granted UPI’s motion for attorney fees for defeating Case’s wage claims. The court applied the version of Labor Code section 218.5 in effect at the time of the summary judgment proceedings, rather than the version in effect at the time it awarded fees, which permits fees to a prevailing employer only when the employee’s wage claims have been brought in “bad faith.” The court of appeal affirmed summary judgment, but reversed the attorney fees award. Under California Supreme Court precedent, statutory provisions that alter the recovery of attorney fees are deemed procedural in nature and apply to pending litigation. View "USS-POSCO Indus. v. Case" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, filed suit against defendants, alleging claims for failure to pay regular and overtime wages, failure to provide meal and rest periods, failure to furnish accurate wage statements, failure to pay wages upon termination or discharge, and unfair competition in violation of Business and Professions Code section 17200. On appeal, plaintiff challenged the dismissal of the complaint for failure to prosecute within five years. The court rejected plaintiff's contention that the parties’ participation in private mediation during the final months of the five-year period triggered Code of Civil Procedure section 1775.7, subdivision (b), which contains an automatic tolling provision. The court concluded that section 1775.7 only applies to mediation conducted in a court-annexed alternative dispute resolution program. The court also concluded that plaintiff did not show it was impossible, impracticable or futile to bring his case to trial within five years. Finally, the court concluded that equitable estoppel does not apply in this case. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Castillo v. DHL Express" on Justia Law

Plaintiff Hector Alvarado appealed the grant of summary judgment entered in favor of defendant Dart Container Corporation of California. Defendant produced food service products, including cups and plates. Plaintiff began working for defendant in September 2010, as a warehouse associate, and was terminated in January 2012. According to defendant’s written policy, an attendance bonus would be paid to any employee who was scheduled to work a weekend shift and completed the full shift. The bonus was $15 per day, for working a full shift on Saturday or Sunday, regardless of the number of hours worked beyond the normal scheduled length of a shift. During plaintiff’s employment, he earned attendance bonuses during weeks he worked overtime and sometimes double time. In August 2012, plaintiff filed a complaint for damages and restitution, alleging defendant had not properly computed bonus overtime under California law. The issue this appeal raised for the Court of Appeal's review the sole question of law of whether defendant’s formula for calculating overtime on flat sum bonuses paid in the same pay period in which they are earned was lawful. After review, the Court concluded it was: "[t]here is no California law specifying a method for computing overtime on flat sum bonuses, and defendant’s formula complies with federal law, which provides a formula for calculating bonus overtime. We accordingly affirm summary judgment in favor of defendant." View "Alvarado v. Dart Container Corp." on Justia Law

Kirk King sustained a back injury while at work for CompPartners, Inc. In July 2011, King suffered anxiety and depression due to chronic back pain resulting from the back injury. In 2011, King was prescribed a psychotropic medication known as Klonopin. The Klonopin was provided to King through Workers’ Compensation. In July 2013, a Workers’ Compensation utilization review was conducted to determine if the Klonopin was medically necessary. Naresh Sharma, an anesthesiologist, conducted the utilization review. Sharma determined the drug was unnecessary and decertified it. As a result, King was required to immediately cease taking the Klonopin. Typically, a person withdraws from Klonopin gradually by slowly reducing the dosage. Due to the sudden cessation of Klonopin, King suffered four seizures, resulting in additional physical injuries. In September 2013, someone requested King again be permitted to take Klonopin. In October 2013, Mohammed Ashraf Ali, a psychiatrist, conducted a second utilization review. Ali also determined Klonopin was medically unnecessary. Neither Sharma nor Ali examined King in-person, and neither warned King of the dangers of an abrupt withdrawal from Klonopin. King sued CompPartners and Sharma for: (1) professional negligence; (2) negligence; (3) intentional infliction of emotional distress; and (4) negligent infliction of emotional distress. King's wife, Sara, sued CompPartners and Sharma for loss of consortium. The Kings sought general, special, exemplary, and punitive damages. The trial court sustained defendants’ demurrer without leave to amend. The Kings raised three issues on appeal to the Court of Appeal: (1) their claims were not preempted by the Workers’ Compensation Act (WCA); (2) defendants owed them a duty of care; and (3) the trial court erred by denying them leave to amend. The Court affirmed the sustaining of the demurrer but reversed the denial of leave to amend. View "King v. CompPartners" on Justia Law

Real-party-in-interest Newport-Mesa Unified School District denied petitioner John Caldecott’s request to produce certain documents made pursuant to the California Public Records Act. Caldecott worked for defendant as Executive Director of Human Resources. During his tenure, Caldecott filed a complaint with School District against its superintendent, Fred Navarro. Five to six weeks later Navarro terminated Caldecott without cause, which decision School District’s board approved. Caldecott alleges this was in retaliation for his complaints about Navarro’s alleged wrongful conduct. Caldecott filed a petition for writ of mandate in the superior court. After its in camera review of the documents, the court denied the petition, ruling that Caldecott already possessed the documents, making his request moot. The court denied the petition on the further ground the documents were connected to his claim of a hostile work environment, making the documents exempt from disclosure under the CPRA. Caldecott’s petition to the Court of Appeal requested the same documents. He argued the court erred by finding his request was moot. Caldecott also asserted there were several other bases for his complaint against defendant, dealing with alleged improprieties including hiring, salaries, and audit practices, not just a personal claim of a hostile work environment. After review, the Court of Appeal concluded the public interest in disclosure of the documents outweighed any privacy interests and the CPRA required their production. The Court granted the petition and remanded the matter to the superior court to conduct an in camera review of the requested documents to determine if any are protected by the attorney-client privilege. The documents were ordered to be redacted to delete the identities of and personal information about unrelated third parties. View "Caldecott v. Super. Ct." on Justia Law

Plaintiff, a former MTA employee, filed a class action against the MTA on behalf of a putative class of current and former bus and train operators. Plaintiff alleged four causes of action: (1) failure to pay minimum wage and overtime compensation in violation of the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. 201; (2) failure to pay minimum wage in violation of Labor Code section 1194 and wage order 9; (3) civil penalties pursuant to the California Labor Code Private Attorney General Act (PAGA); and (4) failure to provide rest periods or to pay premiums for missed rest periods under Labor Code section 226.7 and wage order 9. The trial court sustained the MTA's demurrer, without leave to amend, as to the second cause of action for violation of state minimum wage requirements, the third cause of action for violation of PAGA, and the fourth cause of action for violation of rest period requirements. The trial court overruled the demurrer with respect to the FLSA claim and denied the petition to compel arbitration. In this appeal, the court held that Public Utilities Code sections 30257 and 30750 do not exempt the MTA from rest period and minimum wage requirements, but that the rest period requirements do not apply to the MTA operators who are the putative plaintiffs in this action. Accordingly, the order sustaining the demurrer to the second cause of action for violation of the minimum wage requirements under Labor Code section 1194 and wage order 9 and to the third cause of action for civil penalties under PAGA for violation of the minimum wage requirements is reversed. The judgment is otherwise affirmed. View "Flowers v. LA County Metro. Transp. Auth." on Justia Law

In 2000, plaintiff accepted the Gray law firm’s offer of employment as an associate attorney, including a provision requiring both parties to submit all disputes relating to the employment relationship to binding arbitration. In 2005, Gray merged into DLA Piper. In 2006, plaintiff signed a “Confidential Resignation Agreement and General Release of Claims.” DLA agreed to continue to provide insurance and other benefits until August 2006, when his employment would officially terminate. The Termination Agreement is silent concerning dispute resolution. Plaintiff later sued, alleging: breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing; breach of contract; promissory fraud; and constructive fraud, arguing that the firm had “undervalued” his benefits by computing them based on “artificially reduced salary figures.” DLA sought to compel arbitration. Plaintiff asserted the Termination Agreement constituted a novation, extinguishing the arbitration provision, and that even if the provision had survived, claims involving the benefit plan were not subject to arbitration. The court compelled arbitration. In 2013, the arbitrator determined DLA had breached the Termination Agreement and plaintiff had suffered emotional distress, and awarded $41,000 in contract damages plus interest, $45,000 in emotional distress damages, and $7,535.67 in costs. The court of appeal affirmed confirmation of the award. View "Jenks v. DLA Piper Rudnick Gray Cary" on Justia Law

Plaintiff Adam Prue appealed a judgment in favor of defendant Brady Company/San Diego, Inc. (Brady) after the trial court granted Brady's motion for summary judgment in Prue's action against it for wrongful termination of employment in violation of public policy. On appeal, Prue argued the court erred by: (1) granting the motion for summary judgment because his complaint sufficiently alleged a cause of action for wrongful termination in violation of public policy and that cause of action was not barred by the applicable two-year statute of limitations; and (2) denying him leave to amend his complaint to more fully allege facts in support of that cause of action and/or by not continuing the hearing on the motion. Because the Court of Appeal concluded Prue's complaint adequately alleged facts apprising Brady of his cause of action for wrongful termination in violation of public policy and was timely filed, the trial court erred by granting Brady's motion for summary judgment. Furthermore, the Court concluded the court erred by denying Prue leave to amend his complaint. View "Prue v. Brady Co./San Diego, Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiff, employed by Care Homes, filed suit against Care Homes on the basis that she did not receive off-duty meal breaks or rest periods required under Labor Code section 226.7 and Industrial Welfare Commission wage order No. 5-2001, Cal. Cod Regs., tit. 8, 11050, and alleging a violation of the unfair business competition law, Bus. & Prof. Code, 17200. The trial court denied plaintiff's motion for class certification. Plaintiff argued that Care Homes was obligated under the Labor Code to inform employees that they have the right to revoke an agreement waiving their right to uninterrupted meal periods at any time. The court concluded, however, that Care Homes is not obligated to inform its employees they may have the right to revoke the agreement at any time. Plaintiff failed to establish her revocability theory was potentially viable and, therefore, put forth insufficient evidence predominate questions of law or fact exist and that her claims are typical of the class. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Palacio v. Jan & Gail's Care Homes" on Justia Law