Legal Developments
Recent California employment-law developments in Wrongful Termination.
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 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 First District held that a trial court may not dismiss properly joined plaintiffs for misjoinder based on case-management concerns—440 former Tesla workers alleging a common policy of ignoring racial harassment were entitled to proceed in five joined complaints.
The Ninth Circuit reversed summary judgment for Alaska Airlines and a flight attendants’ union, holding that two terminated employees raised triable disputes over whether they were fired because of their religious beliefs—and that the Railway Labor Act did not preempt their state-law claims.
The First District held that the San Francisco Charter carves the at-will status of the City’s exempt attorneys out of binding interest arbitration—so union proposals for just-cause discipline and seniority-based layoffs were not arbitrable.
The Second District held that an employer is charged with knowledge of an undisclosed disability only when disability is the only reasonable interpretation of the known facts—affirming summary judgment for the employer on FEHA claims.