July 2019 employment law decisions
On-duty meal periods subject to the 30-minute minimum requirement.
July 31, 2019, First District Court of Appeal, L’Chaim House, Inc. v. Division of Labor Standards Enforcement: Residential care home is required to provide meal periods of at least 30 minutes even when they are “on-duty” periods, i.e., the nature of the work prevents the employees from being relieved of all duty and the employer and employees agree in writing to an on-the-job paid meal period.
Anti-SLAPP motions available in discrimination or retaliation cases but not in this particular case.
July 22, 2019, Supreme Court of California, Stanley Wilson v. Cable News Network, Inc.: The anti-SLAPP statute (special motion to strike claims that arise from the defendant’s constitutionally protected activity) may be used to screen claims alleging discriminatory or retaliatory employment actions because the defendant’s adverse action is a necessary element of such claims. Mr. Wilson’s claim that his employer defamed him by privately discussing the alleged reasons for his termination with potential employers and others is not subject to the anti-SLAPP statute because the communications were not made in connection with any issue of public significance.
Employees have sufficient evidence for discrimination and harassment claims.
July 17, 2019, Third District Court of Appeal, Nancy Ortiz v. Dameron Hospital Association and Shirley Galvan v. Dameron Hospital Association: The facts were disputed whether Dameron constructively terminated Ms. Ortiz and Ms. Galvan because there was evidence that their supervisor intentionally created working conditions that would cause a reasonable person to feel compelled to resign. The facts were also disputed whether the supervisor acted with national origin discrimination motive based on evidence that the supervisor focused her criticisms on subordinates’ accents and English language skills. The facts were further disputed whether Ms. Ortiz and Ms. Galvan were subjected to unlawful harassment given the evidence of the supervisor’s criticisms of accents and English-speaking skills and references to subordinates’ ages, including calling them “too old”; and in Ms. Ortiz’s case, the additional evidence of being transferred to a unit where she had little or no experience and provided with no training, being falsely accused of sleeping on the job, and being told she would likely be fired.
Jury verdict in favor of employee in race discrimination and retaliation case affirmed.
July 17, 2019, Third District Court of Appeal, Wendell Brown v. City of Sacramento: Mr. Brown could recover for a suspension that occurred more than one year before he filed a complaint with the Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH) because the suspension did not become final until a union grievance challenging it was dismissed within the one-year statute of limitations period. Mr. Brown could also recover for a transfer that had been announced but not scheduled to take effect until after he filed his DFEH complaint. Although the DFEH complaint did not refer to the specific transfer, it included general language about being forced to transfer and the DFEH investigation would have likely uncovered the specific transfer at issue.
Employer not required to reimburse its employees for purchasing slip-resistance shoes.
July 8, 2019, Third District Court of Appeal, Krista Townley v. BJ’s Restaurants, Inc.: BJ’s Restaurants has a safety policy that requires its employees to wear slip-resistance shoes, although no specific brand, style, or design is required and the policy does not prohibit the employees from wearing their shoes outside of work. The California law requiring employers to reimburse their employees for expenses incurred in the discharge of their work duties (Labor Code section 2802) does not apply because the shoes are non-uniform work clothing and generally usable in the restaurant occupation.