News & Analysis as of

California Supreme Court: Holding Franchisor Liable as Employer Depends on Level of Control Over Day-to-Day Employment Decisions

Patterson v. Domino’s Pizza, LLC, No. S204543 (August 28, 2014): On August 28, 2014, the California Supreme Court issued a decision holding that a franchisor that did not exhibit the characteristics of an “employer” was not...more

Don’t Wait Until Trial Is Over to Raise Objection As to Court’s Jurisdiction, Says California Court

Kim v. Konad USA Distribution, No. G048443 (June 12, 2014): In a recent decision, the California Court of Appeal held that an employer that waited until a trial ended to raise an objection about exhausting administrative...more

Ninth Circuit Revives Police Officers’ Age Bias Class Action Over Scrapped Exam

Stockwell v. City & County of San Francisco, No. 12-15070 (April 24, 2014): In a recent decision, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals diluted the Supreme Court of the United States’ holding in Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes,...more

Ninth Circuit Holds On 23(f) Appeal That District Court Abused Its Discretion By Weighing The Merits In Denying Certification

After granting the plaintiffs’ Rule 23(f) petition, the Ninth Circuit reversed a denial of class certification, finding that the district court had improperly weighed the merits of the plaintiffs’ Rule 23(a)(2) commonality...more

Ninth Circuit Reverses Denial Of Class Certification In Disparate Impact Case

On April 24, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed a district court’s denial of class certification in a disparate impact age discrimination case, holding that the court erred in considering merits issues...more

Are We There Yet? California Appellate Court Rules There Is No Statutory Cap for Pregnancy-Disability Leave

The interplay among state and federal employment leave requirements can be confusing and often becomes a trap for the unwary, as occurred in the recent case of Sanchez v. Swissport, Inc., No. B237761 (Cal. Ct. App. Feb. 21,...more

California Supreme Court Eliminates Damages in FEHA Discrimination Cases Where Employer Proves Mixed Motive Defense

Earlier this month, the California Supreme Court issued a ruling clarifying details of the “mixed-motive” defense applicable to discrimination claims under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”). Harris v....more

California Supreme Court Rules On Mixed Motive Defense To Discrimination Claims, But Large Verdicts Persist…

Wynona Harris, a bus driver for the City of Santa Monica (the City), alleged that she was fired because of her pregnancy in violation of the prohibition against sex discrimination under the Fair Employment and Housing Act...more

California Court of Appeal Overturns $1.3 Million in Damages and Attorneys’ Fees against Lucasfilm for Failure to Give Instruction...

On December 10, 2012, in Veronese v. Lucasfilm Ltd., a California Court of Appeal overturned a Marin County jury’s verdict against Lucasfilm based on its finding that several errors in jury instructions prejudicially affected...more

9 Results
|
View per page
Page: of 1