Justia Labor & Employment Law Opinion Summaries

Several employees of the City and County of San Francisco who joined the city’s retirement system at age 40 or older and later retired due to disability challenged the method used to calculate their disability retirement benefits. The city’s retirement system uses two formulas: Formula 1, which provides a higher benefit if certain thresholds are met, and Formula 2, which imputes service years until age 60 but caps the benefit at a percentage of final compensation. Plaintiffs argued that Formula 2 discriminates against employees who enter the system at age 40 or above, in violation of the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA).Initially, the San Francisco City and County Superior Court sustained the city’s demurrer, finding the plaintiffs had not timely filed an administrative charge. The California Court of Appeal reversed that decision, allowing the case to proceed. After class certification and cross-motions for summary judgment, the trial court found triable issues and held a bench trial. At trial, plaintiffs presented expert testimony based on hypothetical calculations, while the city’s expert criticized the lack of actual data analysis and highlighted factors such as breaks in service and purchased credits.The California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Four, reviewed the trial court’s post-trial decision. The appellate court affirmed the trial court’s judgment, holding that the plaintiffs failed to prove intentional age discrimination or disparate impact under FEHA. The court found substantial evidence that Formula 2 was motivated by pension status and credited years of service, not age. The plaintiffs’ evidence was insufficient because it relied on hypotheticals rather than actual data showing a disproportionate adverse effect on the protected group. The appellate court also affirmed the denial of leave to amend the complaint, finding no reversible error. The judgment in favor of the city was affirmed. View "Carroll v. City & County of S.F." on Justia Law

Orlando Rodriguez, while employed as a mechanic, suffered significant head and brain injuries in November 2016. His employer’s insurer, administered by Illinois Midwest Insurance Agency, accepted the injuries as work-related. Beginning in September 2018, Rodriguez’s treating physician repeatedly requested home health care services in six-week increments, which Illinois Midwest generally approved, sometimes after utilization review. In September 2019, a new request for home health care was denied by a utilization review physician, and the denial was communicated to all relevant parties.Rodriguez challenged the denial by seeking an expedited hearing before a workers’ compensation judge. The judge found Rodriguez was entitled to ongoing home health care, reasoning that Illinois Midwest could not terminate the treatment without substantive medical evidence of a change in condition. The judge concluded the utilization review decision was “moot” due to Rodriguez’s ongoing need and relied on Patterson v. The Oaks Farm (2014) 79 Cal.Comp.Cases 910. Illinois Midwest petitioned for reconsideration, but the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) affirmed the judge’s decision, again relying on Patterson and finding no evidence of changed circumstances.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Three, reviewed the case. The court held that, following legislative reforms in 2004 and 2013, disputes over medical necessity for requested treatments must be resolved through the statutory utilization review and independent medical review processes, not by the WCAB or courts, even for ongoing or continual treatment. The court rejected Patterson’s contrary rule for post-2013 injuries, finding no statutory exception for ongoing treatment. The court annulled the Appeals Board’s decision and remanded the matter for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. View "Illinois Midwest Insurance Agency, LLC v. Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board" on Justia Law

Two former employees of the University of California, after leaving their positions, delayed applying for retirement benefits under the University of California Retirement Plan (the Plan) until several years after reaching the normal retirement age of 60. When they eventually applied, both requested retroactive monthly retirement payments dating back to when they first became eligible. The Regents of the University of California denied these requests, interpreting the Plan to provide benefits only from the date of application forward. The plaintiffs, representing a class of similarly situated former employees, argued that the Plan entitled them to retroactive benefits or, alternatively, that The Regents breached a fiduciary duty by failing to inform them that retroactive benefits were unavailable.The Superior Court of Alameda County granted summary adjudication to The Regents on the breach of contract claim, finding that the Plan did not provide for retroactive monthly benefits prior to a member’s application. The court later held a bench trial on the breach of fiduciary duty claim, ultimately concluding that The Regents had not breached its duty to inform members about their retirement options, as the Plan documents and related communications were sufficient to fully and fairly inform a reasonable plan beneficiary.The California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Four, reviewed the case. It held that the Plan’s language unambiguously requires a member to apply for retirement benefits before those benefits become payable, and that retroactive monthly benefits are not available for periods before an application is filed. The court also affirmed that The Regents met its fiduciary duty of disclosure by providing adequate information about the Plan and its options. The judgment in favor of The Regents was affirmed. View "Mass v. Regents of the University of California" on Justia Law

A company that provides employee management services hired an employee in California in September 2021. At the start of her employment, she completed onboarding documents that did not mention arbitration. About five months later, she was asked to sign additional documents, including an arbitration agreement, a voluntary dispute resolution policy, and a confidentiality and non-disclosure agreement (CND). The arbitration agreement required most employment-related disputes to be resolved through binding arbitration, with certain exceptions for claims related to confidential information. The CND allowed the company to bring certain claims in court and permitted the company to seek injunctive relief without posting a bond or proving actual damages. The employee later filed a lawsuit alleging various employment law violations.The Solano County Superior Court reviewed the company’s motion to compel arbitration. The company argued that the arbitration agreement was enforceable and, if any provision was found unenforceable, it should be severed. The employee opposed, arguing the agreement was unconscionable due to the manner in which it was presented and its one-sided terms. The trial court found the arbitration agreement to be both procedurally and substantively unconscionable, particularly because it forced the employee’s claims into arbitration while allowing the company’s likely claims to proceed in court, and because of a confidentiality provision that restricted informal discovery. The court denied the motion to compel arbitration and declined to sever the offending provisions, finding the agreement permeated by unconscionability.The California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Three, affirmed the trial court’s order. The appellate court held that the arbitration agreement and the CND, read together, were unconscionable due to lack of mutuality and an overly broad confidentiality provision. The court also found no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s refusal to sever the unconscionable terms and concluded that any error in denying a statement of decision was harmless. View "Gurganus v. IGS Solutions LLC" on Justia Law

Wayne Gandy, a professional football player, spent 15 years in the NFL, beginning with the Los Angeles Rams in 1994, then the St. Louis Rams, followed by the Pittsburgh Steelers, New Orleans Saints, and finally the Atlanta Falcons until his retirement in 2009. Gandy signed his initial contract in California with the LA Rams, which also covered his time with the STL Rams. Throughout his career, he played a limited number of games and practiced occasionally in California, but the majority of his employment and games were outside the state.After retiring, Gandy filed a workers’ compensation claim in California in 2015, alleging cumulative injuries from his NFL career. The claim named several teams as employers. The Workers’ Compensation Judge (WCJ) found that the Falcons provided workers’ compensation coverage under Georgia law, which also covered Gandy’s work in California, and determined both Gandy and the Falcons were exempt from California workers’ compensation law under Labor Code section 3600.5. The WCJ did not address the liability of other teams. Gandy petitioned for reconsideration, and the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) rescinded the WCJ’s decision, asserting jurisdiction over Gandy’s claim based on his initial California contract and disregarding the choice of law and forum selection clauses.The California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division Three, reviewed the case. The court held that the Falcons are exempt from liability under California workers’ compensation law pursuant to Labor Code sections 3600.5(c) and (d), as Gandy did not meet the statutory requirements for coverage: he worked only one season for a California-based team and spent less than 20 percent of his career in California. The WCAB’s decision was annulled, and the matter was remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. View "Atlanta Falcons v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Bd." on Justia Law

Plaintiff was employed by a staffing company and assigned to work at a warehousing and logistics firm, performing duties as a materials handler and forklift operator. He filed a class action and a separate representative action alleging various wage and hour violations, including claims for unpaid minimum wages, waiting time penalties, and civil penalties under the Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA). The two cases were consolidated. The plaintiff and his direct employer had entered into an arbitration agreement, which referenced the American Arbitration Association (AAA) rules but did not explicitly state that the arbitrator would decide issues of arbitrability.The defendants moved in the Superior Court of Los Angeles County to compel arbitration of the plaintiff’s individual claims, dismiss class allegations, and stay judicial proceedings. They argued that the arbitration agreement was governed by the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) and that the AAA rules incorporated into the agreement delegated arbitrability issues to the arbitrator. The plaintiff opposed, asserting exemption from the FAA as a transportation worker and arguing that certain claims, including those under PAGA and for unpaid wages, were not arbitrable under California law. The trial court found the FAA did not apply, applied California law, and held that the agreement did not clearly and unmistakably delegate arbitrability to the arbitrator. The court compelled arbitration of some claims but allowed others, including minimum wage and PAGA claims, to proceed in court.On appeal, the California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Eight, affirmed the trial court’s order. The court held that, in the context of a mandatory employment arbitration agreement, mere incorporation of AAA rules without explicit language in the agreement is not clear and unmistakable evidence of intent to delegate arbitrability to the arbitrator. The court also held that claims for waiting time penalties based on minimum wage violations and all PAGA claims were not arbitrable under California law when the FAA does not apply. View "Villalobos v. Maersk, Inc." on Justia Law

The plaintiff, a former employee, brought a lawsuit against his employer alleging multiple claims of discrimination and harassment. The employer successfully moved to compel arbitration pursuant to an agreement between the parties. During the arbitration, the arbitration provider issued an invoice for fees, which the employer attempted to pay electronically on the last day of the statutory 30-day deadline. However, due to a processing delay, the payment was not received by the provider until three days after the deadline.The Superior Court of Los Angeles County found that the employer’s failure to ensure the arbitration fees were received within the 30-day period constituted a material breach of the arbitration agreement under California Code of Civil Procedure section 1281.98. The court vacated its prior order compelling arbitration, returned the case to court, and awarded the plaintiff $1,750 in sanctions for expenses incurred in bringing the motion. The plaintiff then sought over $300,000 in attorney fees and costs under section 1281.98, subdivision (c)(1), which allows recovery of all fees and costs associated with an abandoned arbitration. The trial court granted only a reduced amount, reasoning that the plaintiff was entitled only to fees and costs for work rendered useless by the termination of arbitration.On appeal, the California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division One, considered the impact of the California Supreme Court’s decision in Hohenshelt v. Superior Court (2025) 18 Cal.5th 310. Hohenshelt held that federal law preempts a strict application of section 1281.98, and that forfeiture of arbitral rights occurs only if the failure to pay fees is willful, grossly negligent, or fraudulent. The appellate court determined that the employer’s late payment was not willful, grossly negligent, or fraudulent, and therefore, the plaintiff was not entitled to attorney fees under section 1281.98, subdivision (c)(1). The order awarding attorney fees and costs was reversed. View "Wilson v. Tap Worldwide, LLC" on Justia Law

A group of nurses directly employed by the City and County of San Francisco, represented by their union, brought a class action alleging that the City failed to comply with Labor Code section 512.1, which requires public sector healthcare employers to provide meal and rest breaks and pay premiums for missed breaks. The nurses claimed that since the law’s effective date, the City had not provided the required breaks or compensation. The City and the union had previously negotiated a memorandum of understanding (MOU) that set out meal and rest break provisions and remedies for missed breaks, but the nurses argued these did not satisfy the new statutory requirements.The Superior Court of California, City and County of San Francisco, sustained the City’s demurrer, agreeing with the City’s argument that section 512.1 did not clearly apply to charter cities like San Francisco. The court did not address the City’s alternative constitutional argument regarding home rule authority. The nurses appealed this decision.The California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Four, reviewed the case. The court held that the statutory language defining “employer” in section 512.1 was ambiguous as to whether it included charter cities and counties such as San Francisco. The court found that neither the statutory text, legislative history, nor legislative findings demonstrated a clear intent by the Legislature to override charter city home rule authority or to apply section 512.1 to charter cities. The court also noted that when the Legislature intends to regulate charter cities, it does so explicitly, which was not the case here. Accordingly, the Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s judgment, holding that section 512.1 does not apply to the City and County of San Francisco. View "Levy v. City and County of San Francisco" on Justia Law

After a theft occurred at a licensed marijuana-growing facility in Adelanto, California, the employer, Kavry Management, LLC, required several employees, including Steven McDoniel, to take a polygraph test. McDoniel, who was not advised of his right to refuse the test, took and “failed” two polygraph examinations. He was subsequently terminated from his position, with evidence indicating the termination was due to the polygraph results. McDoniel experienced significant emotional distress and concern for his reputation in the industry following his discharge.The Superior Court of San Bernardino County reviewed McDoniel’s claims for wrongful termination in violation of public policy, defamation, and violations of Labor Code sections 432.2 and 1198.5. The court granted summary adjudication for the employer on the defamation and PAGA claims, and on punitive damages, but allowed the wrongful termination and Labor Code claims to proceed. At trial, the jury found Kavry liable for wrongful termination in violation of public policy and for violating Labor Code sections 432.2 and 1198.5, awarding McDoniel $100,000 in noneconomic damages. The court also imposed a penalty for the personnel records violation and awarded McDoniel attorney fees under section 432.6.The California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division One, held that an employer’s violation of Labor Code section 432.2—requiring or demanding an employee to submit to a polygraph test as a condition of continued employment—supports a claim for wrongful discharge in violation of public policy. The court affirmed the jury’s award of noneconomic damages. However, it reversed the attorney fee award, finding that section 432.6 did not apply retroactively to McDoniel’s employment, which ended before the statute’s effective date. The court also upheld the denial of attorney fees under the private attorney general statute and found McDoniel forfeited his claim for fees under PAGA. The judgment was affirmed in part and reversed in part. View "McDoniel v. Kavry Management" on Justia Law

A woman diagnosed with fibromyalgia sued her former employer, a state agency, under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act, alleging failure to accommodate her disability, failure to engage in an interactive process, disability discrimination, and failure to prevent discrimination. The agency resisted early settlement and engaged in extensive, contentious litigation, including opposing amendments to the complaint, filing demurrers and summary adjudication motions, and engaging in protracted discovery. The case proceeded to a six-week jury trial, where the jury found in favor of the plaintiff on all counts and awarded her over $3.3 million in damages, significantly exceeding her earlier settlement offer.Following the verdict, the Superior Court of Los Angeles County denied the agency’s post-trial motions and awarded the plaintiff statutory attorney fees and costs as the prevailing party. The plaintiff’s counsel sought fees based on a lodestar calculation, supported by detailed timesheets and expert declarations regarding prevailing market rates. The court accepted most of the plaintiff’s evidence, applied a 1.75 multiplier to pre-verdict fees and a 1.25 multiplier to post-verdict fees, and awarded a total of $4,889,786.03. The court found the agency’s challenges to the number of hours and hourly rates unpersuasive, noting the agency had not meaningfully disputed the hours or provided its own billing records.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Eight, reviewed the agency’s appeal. The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in determining reasonable hourly rates, accepting the number of hours billed, or applying multipliers to account for contingency risk and preclusion of other employment. The appellate court affirmed the trial court’s orders and awarded costs to the respondent. View "Bronshteyn v. Dept. of Consumer Affairs" on Justia Law