November 2018-January 2019 employment law decisions
Whistleblower case based on reporting employer’s alleged noncompliance with use tax law.
January 23, 2019, First District Court of Appeal, Says Siri v. Sutter Home Winery, Inc.: Ms. Siri’s case cannot be resolved by summary judgment.
Independent contractor or employee?
January 11, 2019, First District Court of Appeal, Nichelle Duffey v. Tender Heart Home Care Agency, LLC: to determine Ms. Duffey’s status, the recent California Supreme Court decision (Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. Superior Court (2018) 4 Cal.5th 903) indicates the standard described in the law she sued under (Domestic Worker Bill of Rights) must be used.
Recovery for unpaid overtime claim?
January 4, 2019, First District Court of Appeal, Terry Furry v. East Bay Publishing, LLC: despite Mr. Furry’s imprecise evidence of his hours works, it was error to completely deny him relief because the employer failed to keep accurate records of his hours.
Whether judgment in representative action concerning alleged meal break violations will stand.
December 20, 2018, Fourth District Court of Appeal, Kileigh Carrington v. Starbucks Corporation: Ms. Carrington was an “aggrieved” employee who could bring the action because the claims included employees who, like Ms. Carrington, worked more than five hours without being provided a timely meal break or paid a meal period premium.
Catholic elementary school exempt from employment discrimination claim?
December 17, 2018, Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, Kristen Biel v. St. James School: Ms. Biel can pursue her Americans with Disabilities Act claim against the Catholic elementary school that terminated her employment.
Can health care employees waive a second meal period?
December 10, 2018, California Supreme Court, Jazmina Gerard v. Orange Coast Memorial Medical Center: A wage order of the Industrial Welfare Commission permitting health care employees to waive a second meal period even if they have worked more than 12 hours does not violate California’s Labor Code.
Does rejection of a statutory settlement offer allow a prevailing employer to recover its costs?
November 14, 2018, Second District Court of Appeal, Felix Huerta v. Kava Holdings, Inc.: Settlement offers under Code of Civil Procedure 998 have no application to costs and attorneys fees in Fair Employment and Housing Act claims unless the lawsuit is found to be frivolous, including litigation that predates January 1, 2019.
Age Discrimination in Employment Act application to state or municipal agencies.
November 6, 2018, U.S. Supreme Court, Mount Lemmon Fire District v. Guido: The ADEA applies to state and municipal agencies regardless of the number of employees.
Does federal case decision in favor of employee preclude state case to recover more than back pay?
November 6, 2018, First District Court of Appeal, Victor Guerrero v. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation: Mr. Guerrero may pursue his claims for damages in state court.
Americans with Disabilities Act regarded as disabled definition.
November 1, 2018 (amended), Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, Herman Nunies v. HIE Holdings, Inc.: A reasonable jury could conclude that HIE terminated Mr. Nunies because of its knowledge of Mr. Nunies’ shoulder injury.