The case of Ronald Hittle v. City of Stockton illustrates the importance of adhering to Title VII and FEHA guidelines to prevent religious discrimination in employment, highlighting the necessity for employers to provide legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for termination.
Castle Law: California Employment Counsel, PC
Website:
https://www.castleemploymentlaw.com/
Castle Law: California Employment Counsel, PC Blogs
Blog Authors
Latest from Castle Law: California Employment Counsel, PC
California Supreme Court Allows Good Faith Defense in Wage Statement Cases
The California Supreme Court ruled in Naranjo v. Spectrum Security Services, Inc. that meal break premiums are wages that must be reported on wage statements, but employers acting in good faith, despite being mistaken, are shielded from penalties for “knowing…
United States Supreme Court: Subtle Job Changes Can Be Discriminatory Under Title VII
With Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, the United States Supreme Court has determined that under Title VII, any job transfer that adversely affects an employee’s terms or conditions of employment due to their sex can be considered discrimination, regardless…
Mondragon v. Sunrun, Inc.: PAGA and the Need for Precision in Arbitration Agreements
In Angel Mondragon v. Sunrun Inc., the California Court of Appeal affirmed the necessity for precise language in arbitration agreements, upholding the exclusion of all PAGA claims from arbitration based on the agreement’s explicit terms.
PAGA Claims Without Individual Lawsuits: Lessons from Balderas v. Fresh Start
In Lizbeth Balderas v. Fresh Start Harvesting, Inc., the California Court of Appeal reversed a lower court ruling, affirming that under PAGA, employees can pursue representative actions for labor violations without an individual claim, challenging the U.S. Supreme Court’s interpretation…
The Power of Agreement: Ninth Circuit Validates Arbitration Clauses Between Businesses
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in Fli-Lo Falcon, LLC v. Amazon.com, Inc. has affirmed the enforceability of arbitration agreements in commercial contracts between businesses, clarifying that the Federal Arbitration Act’s “transportation worker exemption” does not apply to business entities.
Clarifying Compensation: Why Stock Options Aren't Wages According to Shah v. Skillz, Inc.
In Gautam Shah v. Skillz Inc. (2024), the California Court of Appeal determined that stock options do not constitute “wages” under the California Labor Code, a decision with significant implications for the technology and startup sectors where such options are…
AB 2751: The Implications of California's Proposed "Right to Disconnect" Bill
Assembly Bill (AB) 2751 in California seeks to grant workers a “right to disconnect” by mandating clear work hour definitions and limiting after-hours communications. Critics, however, worry it may lead to inflexibility for both employers and employees.
No Free Lunch: The Cost of Controlled Breaks and Commutes in Huerta v. CSI
The California Industrial Welfare Commission (IWC) sets labor standards, including Wage Order No. 16-2001 for sectors like construction and mining. In George Huerta v. CSI Electrical Contractors (2024), the California Supreme Court ruled that security checks, certain intra-premises travel, and…
Navigating Class Actions: Insights from Miles v. Kirkland Stores, Inc.
Ariana Miles v. Kirkland (2024) underscores the complexities of class action certification in employment law, emphasizing the need for shared employee grievances and consistent enforcement of legally compliant employer policy.