Justia Labor & Employment Law Opinion Summaries

Robert Toothman was initially employed by Apex Life Sciences, LLC, a temporary employment agency, which placed him at Redwood Toxicology Laboratory, Inc. During his employment with Apex, Toothman signed an arbitration agreement that required him to arbitrate employment disputes with Apex and its defined affiliates, subsidiaries, and parent companies. In April 2018, Toothman’s employment with Apex ended, after which he was hired directly by Redwood and worked there until June 2022. Toothman and Redwood did not sign an arbitration agreement. Several months after leaving Redwood, Toothman filed a class action alleging Labor Code violations based solely on his direct employment with Redwood, not his prior period as an Apex employee.The Sonoma County Superior Court reviewed Redwood’s motion to compel arbitration and to dismiss the class claims. Redwood argued that it was either a party to the Apex arbitration agreement as an affiliate, a third-party beneficiary, or entitled to enforce the agreement under equitable estoppel. Redwood also claimed that Toothman’s class claims should be dismissed based on the arbitration agreement. The trial court denied Redwood’s motion, finding that Redwood was not a signatory to the arbitration agreement, was not an affiliate as defined by the agreement, and could not compel arbitration under any alternative theory.The California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Four, reviewed the trial court’s order de novo. It held that Redwood was not a party to the arbitration agreement and did not qualify as an affiliate or third-party beneficiary. The court further determined that Toothman’s claims were not sufficiently intertwined with the arbitration agreement to justify equitable estoppel. The appellate court affirmed the trial court’s order denying Redwood’s motion to compel arbitration and to dismiss the class claims. View "Toothman v. Redwood Toxicology Laboratory" on Justia Law

An employee worked as a railcar repairman for a company that performs inspections and repairs on freight cars at a train yard. He was hired with an agreement that required all employment-related disputes to be resolved through arbitration and included a waiver of class and representative actions, except for certain claims that cannot be waived by law. After his employment ended, the employee sued for various wage and hour violations under California law, asserting claims on his own behalf and on behalf of a proposed class of other employees.The Superior Court of Los Angeles County reviewed the case after the employer moved to compel arbitration of the individual claims and to dismiss the class claims. The court ordered further proceedings to clarify whether the arbitration agreement was part of a contract of employment and whether the employee fell within a federal exemption for certain transportation workers. After additional evidence was submitted, the court granted the employer’s motion, compelling arbitration of individual claims and dismissing the class claims, finding the employee was not exempt from arbitration under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA).On appeal, the California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division One, affirmed the order dismissing and striking the class claims. The court held that the FAA applied to the arbitration agreement because the employee was neither a “railroad employee” nor a transportation worker directly involved in the interstate transportation of goods under the FAA’s section 1 exemption. The court found that repairing out-of-service railcars did not constitute direct engagement in interstate commerce. The court also held that, because the FAA applied, the waiver of class claims was enforceable under federal law, thus preempting contrary state law. The appeal as to the order compelling arbitration was treated as a petition for writ of mandate and was denied. View "Vela v. Harbor Rail Services of California, Inc." on Justia Law

A senior director was employed by a space exploration company from 2020 until his termination in 2022. Upon hiring, he signed an employee agreement containing a broad arbitration provision requiring most disputes with the company and its affiliates to be resolved by arbitration, with some exceptions. After his termination, the employee filed a lawsuit alleging, among other claims, sexual/gender discrimination, sexual/gender harassment, retaliation, wrongful termination, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The company moved to compel arbitration under the agreement, while the employee argued that the arbitration provision was both unconscionable and unenforceable under federal law.The Superior Court of Los Angeles County reviewed the motion and found that the Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act of 2021 (EFAA) applied, concluding that the employee’s allegations sufficiently stated discrimination based on gender. On this basis, the court denied the company’s motion to compel arbitration, without reaching the issue of whether the arbitration agreement was unconscionable. The company filed a timely appeal from the denial of its motion.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, reviewed the order de novo. The appellate court concluded that the arbitration agreement was both procedurally and substantively unconscionable. Procedural unconscionability was established because the agreement was a contract of adhesion, presented on a take-it-or-leave-it basis with no real opportunity for negotiation. Substantive unconscionability resulted from the agreement’s overbroad coverage, lack of mutuality, waiver of the right to a jury trial, and waiver of representative actions, including those under the Private Attorneys General Act. The court found that severance was not an appropriate remedy because the unconscionable provisions were pervasive and central to the agreement. The Court of Appeal affirmed the lower court’s order denying the motion to compel arbitration. View "Stoker v. Blue Origin, LLC" on Justia Law

An employee brought a lawsuit against her former employer and related entities, alleging wrongful termination, unfair business practices, and Labor Code violations stemming from her work as a massage therapist. The plaintiff later sought to amend her complaint to add several new defendants, including the national franchisor associated with her workplace, after obtaining new information through discovery and depositions. The franchisor, Massage Envy, was added after the plaintiff learned it may have influenced employment practices and the sale of the business. However, the initial amended complaint lacked specific factual allegations against Massage Envy.After the plaintiff conceded the factual deficiencies regarding Massage Envy, she sought leave to amend her complaint again. Massage Envy filed a demurrer, arguing not only that the complaint was deficient but also that there was no viable legal basis for liability. The parties disagreed over the adequacy of their meet-and-confer efforts. The Superior Court of San Diego County sustained the demurrer but granted leave to amend, conditioning this leave on the plaintiff’s payment of $25,000 in attorney fees to Massage Envy, relying on section 473 of the California Code of Civil Procedure.The California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division One, reviewed the matter. It held that section 473 does not authorize a trial court to condition leave to amend a pleading on payment of attorney fees to the opposing party, absent a statutory provision or party agreement. The appellate court clarified that section 473 only allows for the shifting of costs, not attorney fees, and that attorney fee awards as sanctions require specific statutory authority and procedural compliance. The appellate court granted a writ of mandate directing the trial court to strike the payment condition for attorney fees and awarded costs to the petitioner. View "Amezcua v. Super. Ct." on Justia Law

An employee began working at a skilled nursing facility, which was later acquired by a new employer. As part of the onboarding process, the employer required the employee to sign three related agreements to arbitrate most employment disputes, except certain representative actions under the California Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA). After ending his employment, the employee filed a class action lawsuit for various wage-and-hour violations, including a PAGA claim. The agreements also contained class action waivers and a confidentiality agreement.The employer moved to compel arbitration of the employee’s individual claims, including his individual PAGA claim, and to enforce the class action waiver. The Superior Court of Los Angeles County denied the motion, ruling that conflicting and ambiguous terms among the three arbitration agreements and other documents meant there was no enforceable agreement to arbitrate. The court also ruled, in the alternative, that the agreement was unconscionable due to both procedural and substantive defects, including an unenforceable waiver of the right to bring a PAGA action and certain provisions in the confidentiality agreement.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Seven, reviewed the order denying arbitration. The court held that the agreements, although containing some ambiguities and minor inconsistencies, reflected a clear mutual intent to arbitrate employment-related disputes. The court found the agreements were not so uncertain as to be unenforceable, and any conflicting provisions could be severed. The court further determined that, while the agreements reflected some procedural unconscionability as contracts of adhesion, they did not contain substantively unconscionable terms. The Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s order and directed that arbitration be compelled. View "Santana v. Studebaker Health Care Center" on Justia Law

A former emergency medical technician employed by a private ambulance company brought a class action alleging that his employer systematically miscalculated the “regular rate of pay” by excluding certain nondiscretionary bonuses from that calculation. This exclusion, he contended, resulted in the underpayment of overtime, double time, and meal and rest period premiums for himself and approximately 135 current and former employees during the alleged class period. The company paid ten types of bonuses, and the plaintiff received one of these—a bonus awarded during National Emergency Medical Services Week—on a single occasion.The plaintiff filed his class action in the Superior Court of Tulare County, seeking class certification for wage and hour violations, including claims for unpaid overtime, inaccurate wage statements, waiting time penalties, and other Labor Code violations. The employer opposed class certification, arguing that the plaintiff’s claim was not typical of the proposed class because he received only one type of bonus and that each type of bonus involved unique circumstances and potential defenses. The trial court denied class certification solely on the ground that the plaintiff did not establish typicality, reasoning he would be subject to unique defenses regarding the inclusion of his bonus in the regular rate of pay.The Court of Appeal of the State of California, Fifth Appellate District, reversed the trial court’s order. The appellate court held that the purported defenses related to the nature of the bonus (as a gift or discretionary payment) were not unique to the plaintiff, since other employees received the same type of bonus under similar circumstances. Therefore, the trial court committed legal error in its analysis of typicality. The case was remanded for further proceedings on the class certification motion, not inconsistent with the appellate opinion. View "Martinez v. Sierra Lifestar" on Justia Law

An employee of a company made formal complaints of discrimination, harassment, and retaliation while she was still employed. The company retained an outside attorney to investigate these complaints, who conducted interviews, reviewed documents, and produced two reports summarizing her findings and conclusions. The employee was later terminated and filed suit against the company and her former supervisors, alleging various employment-related claims. As part of its defense, the company asserted that it had thoroughly investigated the employee’s allegations by hiring an independent investigator, emphasizing the scope and adequacy of the investigation.After the Santa Clara County Superior Court initially denied the employee’s motion to compel production of the investigator’s reports and related materials, the employee sought mandamus relief. The California Court of Appeal, Sixth Appellate District, previously issued a writ ordering the trial court to permit discovery of the reports and materials, subject to in camera review to determine if any protection for core attorney work product was warranted. Following this, the trial court allowed the company to redact certain portions of the reports, including all factual findings, on the basis that they constituted attorney work product and thus were not discoverable.Reviewing the case again, the California Court of Appeal, Sixth Appellate District, held that the company had waived attorney-client privilege and attorney work product protection as to all factual findings and any information relevant to the scope or adequacy of the investigations, because it put these matters at issue in its defense. The court clarified that the waiver extended specifically to the investigator’s factual findings and materials relevant to the adequacy of the investigation, but not necessarily to unrelated legal advice. The court ordered the trial court to vacate its prior acceptance of the redactions, conduct further in camera review, and disclose all materials within the scope of the waiver. View "Paknad v. Super. Ct." on Justia Law

A nursing student was required to complete clinical rotations at local hospitals as part of her coursework in 2017. She alleged that her supervisor, the director of the nursing program, subjected her to severe sexual harassment and retaliated against her when she rejected his advances by giving her a failing grade and refusing to discuss it. After the student reported these incidents, the district placed the supervisor on administrative leave and initiated an independent investigation. The investigation confirmed inappropriate conduct by the supervisor, who did not return to his position. The student later withdrew from the program and completed her degree out of state. Through counsel, she notified the district of her intent to pursue claims and sought damages.The Superior Court of San Bernardino County granted summary judgment for the community college district, holding that the student lacked standing under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), failed to comply with the Government Claims Act for her non-FEHA claims, and that the district was not deliberately indifferent under the Education Code. The court also excluded the student’s attorney’s declaration due to a technical omission, and entered judgment for the district on all claims.The California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division Three, reversed the judgment. The court found the trial court abused its discretion by refusing to allow the attorney’s declaration to be corrected, which was a curable procedural defect. The appellate court held that a postsecondary student serving in a clinical capacity qualifies as an “unpaid intern” under FEHA, conferring standing. The court further found the student’s notice to the district satisfied the Government Claims Act requirements, and concluded that triable issues existed regarding whether the district acted with deliberate indifference. The court affirmed summary adjudication for the district only on the Civil Code cause of action, but otherwise denied summary judgment and remanded for further proceedings. View "Walton v. Victor Valley Community College District" on Justia Law

The dispute arose after the County of Los Angeles decided to outsource security work previously performed by members of the Los Angeles County Professional Peace Officers Association (PPOA). PPOA is the exclusive bargaining representative for certain county security officers under a memorandum of understanding (MOU) with the County. When PPOA learned of the County’s plan to contract out these services to a private company, it requested to meet and confer over the decision. The County refused, arguing that PPOA had waived its right to bargain over such decisions through provisions in the MOU, particularly a management rights clause and language addressing the transfer of functions to other entities.PPOA filed an unfair practice charge with the Los Angeles County Employee Relations Commission (ERCOM), alleging the County failed to meet and confer as required by statute. An ERCOM hearing officer found that while the County ordinarily would have a duty to bargain over outsourcing, the MOU’s language constituted a clear and unmistakable waiver of PPOA’s bargaining rights. ERCOM adopted this finding. PPOA then filed a petition for writ of mandate in the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, seeking to compel the County to meet and confer. The superior court agreed with the County, ruling that the MOU’s reference to “reorganization” included outsourcing and thus waived PPOA’s right to bargain over the decision.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Seven, reviewed the case and reversed the superior court’s judgment. The appellate court held that the MOU did not clearly and unmistakably waive PPOA’s right to meet and confer over the County’s decision to transfer work to a private contractor. The court ordered the superior court to issue a writ of mandate requiring the County to meet and confer with PPOA regarding its outsourcing decision. View "L.A. County Professional Peace Officers Assn. v. County of L.A." on Justia Law

A former employee initiated a class action lawsuit against her prior employer, alleging violations of various California Labor Code provisions and other employment-related statutes. After the lawsuit was filed, the employer entered into individual settlement agreements with approximately 954 current and former employees, offering cash payments in exchange for waivers of wage and hour claims. The total settlement payments exceeded $875,000. The named plaintiff did not sign such an agreement, but many potential class members did.The Superior Court of San Bernardino County partially granted the plaintiff’s motion to invalidate these individual settlement agreements, finding them voidable due to allegations of fraud and duress. The trial court ordered that a curative notice be sent to all affected employees, informing them of their right to revoke the agreements and join the class action. The court, however, declined to require that the notice include language stating that those who revoked their settlements might be required to repay the settlement amounts if the employer prevailed. The court instead indicated that settlement payments could be offset against any recovery and that the issue of repayment could be addressed later.The California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division Two, reviewed the trial court’s order after the employer petitioned for writ relief. The appellate court held that, under California’s rescission statutes (Civil Code sections 1689, 1691, and 1693), putative class members who rescind their individual settlement agreements may be required to repay the consideration received if the employer prevails, but actual repayment can be delayed until judgment. The court instructed the trial court to revise the curative notice to inform employees that repayment may be required at the conclusion of litigation, and clarified that the trial court retains discretion at judgment to adjust the equities between the parties. The order of the trial court was vacated for reconsideration consistent with these principles. View "The Merchant of Tennis, Inc. v. Superior Ct." on Justia Law