Recent Employment Decisions

July 2018

Troester v. Starbucks Corp.

(Cal. Supreme Court, 7/26/18) 

Upon request by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, the California Supreme Court agreed to answer the following question: Does the federal Fair Labor Standards Act’s de minimis doctrine, as stated in Anderson v. Mt. Clemens Pottery Co. (1946) 328 U.S. 680, 692, and Lindow v. United States (9th Cir. 1984) 738 F.2d 1057, 1063, apply to claims for unpaid wages under California Labor Code sections 510, 1194, and 1197?

The Court answered that question in the negative, deterimining "[t]here is no indication in the text or history of the relevant statutes and Industrial Welfare Commission (IWC) wage orders of such adoption."

Caldera v. Dept. of Corrections & Rehabilitation

(Fourth Dist., Div. Three., 7/9/18) 

In a disability discrimination case where a correctional officer alleged disability harassment based on co-workers and his supervisor mocking his stutter, the appellate court reversed a trial court order for a new trial on damages, because the judge failed to file a statement of reasons within 10 days of making the order. The Court of Appeal also found that substantial evidence supported the jury’s factual findings of disability harassment.

 Juarez v. Wash Depot Holdings, Inc.

(Second Dist., Div. Six, 7/3/18)

An employee of defendant Wash Depo Holdings challenged the enforceability of an arbitration agreement because it prohibited the employee from bringing a claim under California’s Private Attorney General Act (PAGA). The English-language version of the handbook provided that the PAGA waiver was severable from the arbitration agreement should a court find the waiver was unenforceable. In contrast, the Spanish-language version of the handbook provided that the PAGA waiver was not severable from the arbitration agreement. Based on these facts, the appellate court held that the arbitration agreement was unenforceable and the Private Attorneys General Act waiver set forth in the employee handbook was unenforceable as against public policy.

Other Employment Decisions of Interest

Padda v. Superior Court (Fourth Dist., Div. Two, 7/6/18) - Generally, a trial court abuses its discretion when it denies a request for continuance of trial due to the absence of a properly called and subpoenaed witness. Accordingly, the Court of Appeal determined the trial court abused its discretion in denying the plaintiff's request for a continuance when an expert witness became unavailable due to a medical condition.

Morales v. 22nd District Agricultural Assn.  (Fourth Dist., Div. One., 7/10/18) - The Court of Appeal determined that a state entity, whose employees are exempt from state law requiring the payment of overtime compensation, is not required to pay overtime compensation to its employees even when the state entity jointly employs the employees with a non-state employer.

Tripplett v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Fourth Dist., Div. Three, 7/24/18) - A Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board’s (WCAB) decision to deny a former football player's claim for worker’s compensation for cumulative injuries he suffered during his career, affirmed.

Johnston Mediation