Legal Developments
Recent California employment-law developments in Court Opinion.
The Fourth District held that an arbitration clause limited to disputes about an employment agreement did not reach a terminated employee’s FEHA, CFRA, and Tameny claims, which exist independent of the contract.
The Fourth District held that an employer’s arbitration and confidentiality agreements must be read together—and, so read, unfairly forced the employee to arbitrate while letting the employer sue in court.
The Second District held that a trial court abused its discretion by capping “garden-variety” emotional distress damages and rejecting a plaintiff’s own testimony about future economic loss—reinstating a multimillion-dollar jury verdict.
The First District held that California’s ban on using a non-conviction arrest in employment decisions did not reach a Utah remote worker whose termination was decided in Illinois—and affirmed the denial of his petition to vacate the arbitration award.
The Second District affirmed that the State Personnel Board did not abuse its discretion when it reduced a CHP officer’s dismissal for a single false overtime claim to a one-year suspension—dishonesty alone does not compel termination in every case.
The Ninth Circuit laid out the four-part test for a federal whistleblower claim under the NDAA and held that a descriptive grant report and a rhetorical question were not protected disclosures—affirming summary judgment for the employer.
The Ninth Circuit held that an employee need only give her employer enough information to understand an actual conflict between her religious beliefs and a job requirement—reviving a failure-to-accommodate suit over a revoked vaccine exemption.
The First District held that a government claim form alleging ongoing retaliation must state a date or date range for the wrongful conduct—and that listing the date of loss as “numerous” and “ongoing” neither complies nor substantially complies with the Government Claims Act.
The Fourth District held that a trial court must consider the mandatory $1,000 discovery sanction under Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.050, which applies even when a self-represented party incurred no expenses.
The Ninth Circuit held that a dispute “arises” under the EFAA when an employee registers disagreement and the employer opposes it—and that a pre-2022 dispute must go to arbitration.