Primary practice area
Third District affirms denial of an anti-SLAPP motion in a CSU professor retaliation case, holding that claims based ‘in part’ on communications with another university do not arise from protected activity when other unprotected employment decisions also support the claim.
Fourth District holds that the State Fund rule applies when a law firm receives privileged emails that a former executive improperly took from the company, and reverses the trial court’s denial of disqualification motions.
Fifth District enforces a janitorial worker’s mutual arbitration agreement and explains how trial courts should distinguish, but document their departures from, binding California Court of Appeal precedent like Cook v. USC.
Second District holds that a parole agent who service retired while under misconduct investigation cannot pursue disability retirement because his departure under unfavorable circumstances foreclosed the possibility of reinstatement.
First District holds that an arbitrator’s merits-based finding that an employee did not suffer Labor Code violations preclusively destroys the same employee’s PAGA standing in the companion court action.
First District holds the First Amendment ministerial exception does not categorically bar a Zen Center worker’s wage-and-hour claims, but Labor Code section 98.2’s appeal bond is required only of the employing entity, not individuals also liable under section 558.1.
Fourth District holds a public employee ‘convicted’ of a job-related felony — by guilty plea — forfeits a portion of his pension benefits under Government Code section 7522.74, and that forfeiture is not undone when the felony is later reduced to a misdemeanor under Penal Code section 17(b).
Sixth District reverses a Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board reconsideration order, holding the Board exceeded its jurisdiction by granting reconsideration after the former section 5909 60-day deadline ran and that the narrow grounds for equitable tolling were not satisfied.
Fourth District reverses summary judgment for Wal-Mart, holding California’s Investigative Consumer Reporting Agencies Act allows employees to recover the $10,000 statutory damages award for ICRAA disclosure violations without proving any concrete injury such as an adverse employment decision.
The California Supreme Court clarifies that an unreadably small or blurry contract goes to procedural unconscionability, not substantive unconscionability — but illegibility triggers heightened scrutiny of the underlying terms for unfairness.