Archive of Recent Employment Law Cases
On-Line Power v. Mazur; Second District, Court of
Appeals., Div. Eight; April 17, 2007
The trial court erred in ruling that the Labor Code provisions ensuring an employee's right to payment of wages did not apply to salaried corporate executives, and the order denying defendant's motion for attorney's fees is reversed.
Carter v. Escondido Union High
School Dist. Fourth District, Court of Appeals, Div. One; March 21, 2007
For an employer to be liable for
the tort of wrongful termination in violation of public policy, the employer's
conduct must violate a public policy that is " 'fundamental,' " "
'well established' " and "carefully tethered" to a constitutional
or statutory provision.
Reyes v. Van
Elk, Ltd. Second District Court of Appeals., Div. Seven; March 14, 2007
The undocumented status
of the workers did not prohibit plaintiffs from having standing to raise their
prevailing wage claim, and the prevailing wage law and the post-Hoffman
statutes are not preempted by the federal Immigration Reform and Control Act of
Flippin v. Los Angeles City Bd. of Civil Service
Commissioners (Los Angeles City Dept. of Water and Power) Second District
Court of Appeals.,
Div. Two; March 1, 2007
Although substantial evidence supported the trial court's
determination that employee waived his right to a Skelly hearing, and
defendant was not denied his due process right to an impartial Skelly
hearing officer, the trial court erred in setting aside the penalty of discharge
imposed by the Board. The Court of Appeals found that substantial evidence
supported the trial court's determination that the employee waived his right to
a Skelly hearing, and and affirmed that ruling. The the appeals court further
held that, under the circumstances presented, the employee was not denied his
due process right to an impartial Skelly hearing officer, but that the trial
court erred in setting aside the penalty of discharge imposed by the Board.
Judgment was therefore reversed.
Small v. Superior Court (Brinderson Constructors, Inc.) Fourth Dist., Div.
Three, February 28, 2007
Employees sought extraordinary relief from the trial court's order declaring
invalid a wage order promulgated by the California Industrial Welfare Commission
(IWC). The wage order regulates the hours, wages, and working conditions of
California employees engaged in on-site construction, drilling, logging, and
certain mining occupations. The trial court declared the wage order invalid
because it was not accompanied by a sufficient statement of the basis, was not
properly published, and contained an unworkable definition of "given
craft," which made the order unreasonable, arbitrary, capricious, and
unfair. The appeals court disagreed and granted the petition.
Amalgamated Transit Union v. Superior Court (First Transit, Inc.)
Dist., Div. Eight., February 28, 2007
The appeals court held 1) that an individual's statutory right to sue in a
representative capacity, conferred under the Labor Code Private Attorneys
General Act of 2004 (Labor Code section 2699) and under the unfair competition
law (Business and Professions Code section 17203), may not be assigned to a
third party; and 2) Section 17203 of the unfair competition law, as amended by
Proposition 64, providing that representative claims may be brought only if the
injured claimant "complies with Section 382 of the Code of Civil
Procedure," means that private representative claims must meet the
procedural requirements applicable to class action lawsuits.
Womack v. San Francisco Community College Dist. First
Dist., Div. Two.,
January 24, 2007
Employee appealed from the trial court's denial of his petition for a writ of
mandate brought pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1085. By that
petition, he sought to compel his employer to reinstate him as a regular
employee in its English as a Second Language (ESL) Department on the basis that
the prior level of his work in that department had altered his status from that
of a "temporary employee" to one of a "contract employee"
who could not be terminated in the manner or time frame he was in 2001. The
trial court denied the motion on two grounds: (1) under the applicable statutes,
appellant's status had not, in fact, changed and he was thus still a temporary
employee as of the date of his termination; and (2) laches. The appeals court
agreed with thee trial court on both grounds and affirmed.
515 S. Flower Street, 36th Floor
Los Angeles, California 90071
Site Map | Home | Wrongful
Termination | Disability Discrimination | Employment Discrimination, | FEHA | FMLA
| Pregnancy Discrimination | Overtime
Pay | Meal & Rest Breaks | Retaliatory Termination
| Union Employee Lawyer | Public
Employee Lawyer |
Sexual Harassment | Title
VII | USERRA | Whistleblower | Attorney
Links | Legal Resources | FAQS | Site Search