Search

Iskanian precludes employer from compelling employee to arbitrate any portion of employee’s claim un

Tanguilig v. Bloomingdale’s - filed Nov. 16, 2016, First District, Div. Five Iskanian v. CLS Transportation Los Angeles, LLC (2014) 59 Cal.4th 348 precludes employer from compelling employee to arbitrate any portion of employee’s claim under the Labor Code Private Attorney Generals Act, including the employee’s individual component, under a pre-dispute agreement.

Tumor, although not cancerous, limited a major life activity and constituted a disability under the

Soria v. Univision Radio Los Angeles, Inc. - filed Nov. 15, 2016, Second District, Div. Seven Plaintiff stated a prima facile case of disability discrimination, sufficient to survive summary judgment, by presenting evidence that defendant terminated her employment with knowledge that she was seeing a doctor regarding a stomach tumor, together with circumstantial evidence that defendant's explanation--that it had no knowledge of her condition and terminated her for repeated tardiness--was a pretext. Plaintiff presented sufficient evidence to create a triable issue as to whether her tumor, although not cancerous, limited a major life activity and thus constituted a disability under the Fair Em

FEHA Age Discrimination/Retaliation

Dinslage v. City and County of San Francisco. David P. Dinslage is a former employee of Recreation and Parks Department (the Department) of the City and County of San Francisco (the City). As part of a large-scale restructuring of the Department’s recreation programs, Dinslage’s employment classification was eliminated, and he was one of a large number of employees who were laid off. Although he applied to be rehired in a newly created classification, he was not offered a position. He then retired from City employment. Dinslage sued the Department, the City, and a number of the Department’s managerial employees for age discrimination, retaliation, and harassment in violation of the Califo

Payroll service not considered additional employer

For purposes of Labor Code claims predicated on allegations that her direct employer failed to compensate her as required by the code, the direct employer’s payroll services provider was not an additional employer, absent an allegation that it took over functions beyond those ordinarily assigned to an employer’s internal payroll department. Under the economic reality test, payroll services provider was not an employer for purposes of the overtime compensation provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Allegations that payroll services provider, under an unwritten contract with employer, undertook to discharge employer’s wage-related duties -- including calculation of employees’ wages and pr