Recently in Employment Law Category

In a class action lawsuit brought by former employees alleging unlawful wage deductions, failure to pay overtime and other employment violations, class counsel's obligations to the class do not end with the entry of judgment and his obligations continue until all class issues are resolved, which may include enforcement of the judgment.   

Read Barboza v. West Coast Digital GSM, Inc., No. B215454 [HTML]

Read Barboza v. West Coast Digital GSM, Inc., No. B215454 [PDF]

Appellate Information

Filed November 19, 2009

Judges

Opinion by Judge Willhite

Counsel
For Appellant:    Barritt Smith, Douglas A. Barritt and Perry G. Smith

For Appellee: N/A

In plaintiff's suit against his former employer for retaliatory termination, judgment pursuant to a jury's verdict in favor of defendant and denial of plaintiff's motion for a new trial is affirmed where: 1) the trial court did not err in excluding evidence of plaintiff's alleged disability as he failed to make known to the court the purpose and relevance of the evidence to any other issue; and 2) the trial court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that a proposed settlement agreement fell within Evidence Code section 1152's broad scope. 

Read Mangano v. Verity, Inc., No. H033286 [HTML]

Read Mangano v. Verity, Inc., No. H033286 [PDF]

Appellate Information

Filed November 16, 2009

Judges

Opinion by Judge Mihara

Counsel
For Appellant:    Stephen R. Jaffe

For Appellee:  Gregory L. Doll, Hunter R. Eley, Doll Amir & Eley LLP

Workers' Compensation Appeals Board's decision and award finding the employer liable for discrimination against an industrially injured employee because the employer did not accept a physician's release to allow the employee to return to work is annulled as the employee did not establish a prima facie showing of employer's liability for discrimination in violation of Labor Code section 132a, and as such, the burden did not shift to the employer to establish an affirmative defense.  

Read Gelson's Markets, Inc. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd., No. B209336 [HTML]

Read Gelson's Markets, Inc. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd., No. B209336 [PDF]

Filed November 13, 2009

Judges

Opinion by Judge Kitching

Counsel

For Appellant:  Paul, Hastings, Janofsky & Walker, Paul W. Crane, Jr., Molly A. Harcos; Law Offices of Daniel P. Goggins and Daniel P. Goggins

For Appellee:  Goldschmid, Silver & Spindel and Lawrence Silver

City's petition for review of an order of the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) awarding the full $125,000 death benefit to the California Department of Industrial Relations, Death Without Dependents Unit (DWD Unit), notwithstanding the City's payment of $104,208 in death benefits to the deceased worker's estate pursuant to Labor Code section 4702(a)(6)(B) is annulled because the escheat of a death benefit to the state after partial payment to the estate, in effect the award of two death benefits for a single death, is inconsistent with the governing statutes and the legislative policy they implement.  

Read City of Los Angeles v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd., No. B211331 [HTML] 

Read City of Los Angeles v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd., No. B211331 [PDF] 

Filed November 12, 2009

Judges

Opinion by Judge Perluss

Counsel

For Appellant:   Gurvitz Marlowe & Miller and Diane E. Phillips

For Appellee:   N/A

In a putative class action against Citigroup by its former employees challenging the company's forfeiture provision of a voluntary employee incentive compensation plan (Plan) upon termination in violation of Labor Code section 201 and 202, judgment of the court of appeals granting Citigroup's motion for summary judgment is affirmed as the company Plan's forfeiture provision does not run afoul of sections 201 or 202 because no earned wages remain unpaid upon termination for cause or resignation. 

Read Schachter v. Citigroup, Inc. , No. S161385 [PDF]

Read Schachter v. Citigroup, Inc. , No. S161385 [HTML]

Appellate Information
Appeal from Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC191447

Filed November 2, 2009

Judges
Before:  George, C. J., Baxter, J., Werdegar, J., Chin, J., McConnell, J., Moreno, J., and Ramirez, J.

Opinion by Moreno, J.

Counsel
For Appellant: Law Offices of Ashley D. Posner, Ashley D. Posner and Barbara Brudno

For Appellee:  Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, Raoul D. Kennedy, Joren S. Bass, Joan Shreffler, Douglas B. Adler, Seth M. Schwartz, Jeffrey W. McKenna, William P. Frank, Preeta D. Bansal and Sarah E. McCallum

In plaintiff's pregnancy discrimination suit against a city, trial court's judgment in favor of plaintiff is reversed and remanded where: 1) the court's refusal to instruct the jury with the mixed-motive defense, BAJI No. 12.26, prejudiced the city; and 2) the trial court properly denied defendant's JNOV. 

Read Harris v. City of Santa Monica, No. B199571 [PDF]

Read Harris v. City of Santa Monica, No. B199571 [HTML]

Filed October 29, 2009

Judges

Opinion by Judge Rubin

Counsel

For Appellant: Marsha Jones Moutrie, City Attorney, Joseph Lawrence, Assistant City Attorney, Carol Ann Rohr and Barbara Greenstein, Deputy City Attorneys

For Appellee:  Kokozian & Nourmand and Michael Nourmand

In plaintiff's action against her former employer for sexual harassment under the Fair Employment and Housing Act, judgment in favor of the employer is affirmed where: 1) a statement in defendant's statement of undisputed facts submitted in its summary judgment motion cannot be used against defendant at trial as an admission; and 2) trial court did not err in denying plaintiff's motion for JNOV as plaintiff waived her claim that no substantial evidence supports the defense verdict. 

Read Myers v. Trendwest Resorts, Inc., No. C058411 [PDF]

Read Myers v. Trendwest Resorts, Inc., No. C058411 [HTML]

Filed October 26, 2009

Judges

Opinion by Judge Sims

Counsel

For Appellant:  Law Offices of Stephan Williams and Stephan C. Williams; Law Offices of Daniel Bartley and Daniel R. Bartley

For Appellee:  Curiale Hirschfeld Kraemer, John F. Baum and Felicia R. Reid

In plaintiff's action against her employer under the state Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), trial court's judgment in favor of plaintiff and award of $200,000 in damages is affirmed where: 1)the court properly denied defendant's motion for nonsuit as it failed to provide reasonable accommodation for plaintiff and this failure was substantial; 2) trial court properly refused to give proposed jury instructions that were consistent with defendant's flawed interpretation of the underlying law; 3) trial court's comment on plaintiff's burden of proof is unlikely to have changed the outcome of the trial and no prejudice resulted, assuming there was error.   

Read A.M. v. Albertsons, LLC, No. A122307

Filed October 15, 2009

Judges

Opinion by Judge Reardon

Counsel

For Appellant:  Epstein Becker & Green, Steven R. Blackburn, Leslie J. Mann

For Appellee:  Boxer & Gerson, Leslie F. Levy, Jean K. Hyams, Law Offices of Ellen Lake, Ellen Lake

In a labor dispute between firefighter's union and the city, trial court's ruling allowing the Public Employment Relations Board (PERB) to intervene and granting its motion to dismiss the action based on the agency's exclusive initial jurisdiction over the underlying labor dispute is reversed as, under the amended Myers-Milias-Brown Act section 3509(a), the court now has exclusive jurisdiction to determine the disputed issues in the case.  

Read City of San Jose v. Int'l Ass'n of Firefighters, Local 230, No. H032097

Filed October 14, 2009

Judges

Opinion by Judge McAdams

Counsel

For Appellant:  Wylie, McBride, Platten & Renner, Christopher E. Platten, Mark Renner

For Appellee: Office of the City Attorney, Richard Doyle, City Attorney, George Rios, Asst. City Attorney, Robert Fabela, Sr. Deputy City Attorney