A wife sued her husband’s employer after she became infected with Covid-19 and was hospitalized. The case was removed from state court to federal court, and the federal district court dismissed her lawsuit because: (1) her claims based on contact with her husband were barred by the exclusive remedy provisions of Workers’ Compensation Act (“WCA”); (2) her claims based on indirect contact with infected surfaces failed to plead a plausible claim; and (3) the employer’s duty to provide a safe workplace did not extend to nonemployees who contracted a virus away from the jobsite. The case was appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, and that court certified two questions to be decided by the California Supreme Court in Kuciemba v. Victory Woodworks, Inc., 2023 WL 4360826 (Case No. S274191 July 6, 2023).
Given the current state of the economy, many employers are considering reductions in work hours and potential layoffs. As businesses consider taking action to save money and prevent potential closure, they must do so carefully in order to manage and reduce risk of future litigation related to its actions. This blog discusses the appropriate steps that a business must take when conducting a reduction in force (“RIF”).
Recent mass layoffs by tech companies, such as Twitter and Meta, have made headlines. The massive layoff by Twitter on November 4, 2022 has already resulted in a lawsuit filed by former Twitter employees for violations of the federal Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification (“WARN”) Act. The WARN Act requires certain employers to provide 60-day advance notice in cases of qualified plant closings and mass layoffs, allowing employees and their families with transition time to seek alternate employment or skills training.
Often it is said that “the best result in mediation is the one that makes everyone equally unhappy.” Even so, experience proves that the party who usually comes out best in mediation is the one who is most prepared. This article provides some common sense, practical tips to help with that preparation.
Mediation has become an essential part of litigation because the risks of going to trial are so considerable. A defendant that cannot resolve a case before trial runs the risk of a court or jury awarding substantial damages to the plaintiff. If the plaintiff recovers anything at all, the defendant also may have to pay the plaintiff’s attorneys’ fees and costs. Even when defendants win (and they do), the fees they pay to their own counsel to secure a defense win are substantial. Plaintiffs also are at risk. While many plaintiffs may have contingent fee arrangements with their own counsel, a losing plaintiff likely will be on the hook for significant hard costs incurred in litigation by their own counsel. Even worse, they can be responsible for the defendant’s legal costs, and on rare occasions, attorneys’ fees.
The federal Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”) permits background checks for employment purposes, so long as employers obtain authorization from and provide the appropriate “stand-alone” disclosure to the applicant or employee regarding the background check, among other requirements. Willful violations of the FCRA’s stand-alone disclosure requirement can lead to recovery of statutory damages ranging from $100 to $1,000 per violation. Thus, a central issue in FCRA cases is whether the employer’s violation is “willful,” which requires a showing that the defendant’s conduct was “intentional” or “reckless.”
On October 7, 2021, Governor Newsom signed SB 331 to place additional restrictions on employers offering severance agreements and settling employment claims alleging harassment, discrimination or retaliation based on purported violations of the Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”). The new law, which is effective January 1, 2022, expands California’s current legal restrictions under California Code of Civil Procedure Section 1001. Currently, CCP section 1001 prohibits various confidentiality and non-disparagement clauses in settlement agreements, specifically those that would prevent disclosure of factual information relating to claims of sexual assault, sexual harassment, workplace harassment or discrimination based on sex, or retaliation against a person for reporting such acts.
Even seemingly minor wage and hour violations present a very real threat of crippling or potentially ruinous liability for California’s employers when assessed in class and Private Attorneys General Act (“PAGA”) representative action lawsuits. To make matters worse, plaintiffs are increasingly targeting individual owners and agents in addition to their corporate employer, which begs the question: When can individuals be held personally liable in wage and hour lawsuits?
Seventeen years ago, in 2004, the California Legislature enacted the Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (“PAGA”). Appropriately dubbed a “bounty hunter” law, PAGA authorizes any current or former “aggrieved” employee of a California employer to file suit to seek statutory penalties for essentially any violation of the California Labor Code together with attorney’s fees, hence the incentive for plaintiff attorneys to bring such cases. Specifically, under PAGA a current or former employee who is “aggrieved” by a violation of the California Labor Code can seek in addition to damages and liquidated damages, civil penalties on the employee’s behalf and on behalf of all other similarly “aggrieved” (i.e., affected) current and former employees. The recoverable civil penalties are up to $100 per employee per pay period for an initial violation and $200 per employee per pay period for each subsequent violation, plus attorney’s fees and litigation costs. When such penalties are awarded, the plaintiff current or former employee along with all other similar “aggrieved” employee will receive 25% of the penalties together with their attorney’s fees as a “bounty,” with the balance of the penalties payable to a State agency known as the California Labor and Workforce Development Agency. Click Here to read entire post.
In Magadia v. Wal-mart Associates, Inc., et al., No. 19-16184, 2021 WL 2176584 (9th Cir. May 28, 2021), the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal reversed the district court’s award of $102 million to an employee who sued the company alleging that he and other employees did not receive compliant wage statements or meal periods. Unlike the district court, the Ninth Circuit found that the former employee who sued Walmart had suffered no meal period violations, and thus the employee had no standing to sue on behalf of others. The Ninth Circuit also held that the district court incorrectly concluded Walmart’s wage statements did not comply with California law.
In Anthony v. TRAX International Corp. (April 17, 2020, Case No. 18-15662), the Ninth Circuit held the limitation of using after-acquired evidence to merely mitigate damages did not extend to evidence used to show that an Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) plaintiff is not a qualified individual, an element of a prima facie case of disability discrimination.
Other AALRR Blogs
Recent Posts
- California Employers Beware! Arbitration is Waived if Your Payment is Late (Yes, Even by a Day)
- California Announces Minimum Wage Increase to $16 Per Hour Starting January 1, 2024
- Pregnant Workers Fairness Act Expands Accommodation Obligations
- California Supreme Court Limits The Spread Of Covid-19 Liability
- Beware: July 1 Local Minimum Wage Increases
- NLRB Restores Context-Specific Tests for Determining Whether an Employee Loses Protection of the NLRA for Conduct while Engaging in Protected Activity
- Employers Gain Rights to Sue Under Supreme Court Ruling — National Labor Relations Act Does Not Protect Strikers’ Destruction of Property
- An Inherent Danger in the Poverty Defense to a PAGA Representative or Wage and Hour Class Action
- Staffing Employer Not Required to Pay Final Wages to Employee Discharged by Client Employer
- DHS Ends Pandemic-Era Flexibility in Form I-9 Requirements
Popular Categories
- (150)
- (48)
- (35)
- (15)
- (15)
- (35)
- (23)
- (6)
- (41)
- (2)
- (24)
- (7)
- (6)
- (6)
- (6)
- (9)
- (4)
- (2)
- (2)
- (3)
- (2)
- (2)
- (2)
- (3)
- (3)
- (1)
- (1)
- (1)
- (2)
- (1)
- (1)
- (1)
- (1)
- (1)
- (1)
- (1)
Contributors
- Cindy Strom Arellano
- Sarkis A. Atoyan
- Eddy R. Beltran
- William M. Betley
- Brigham M. Cheney
- Michele L. Collender
- Kevin R. Dale
- Scott K. Dauscher
- Alexandria M. Davidson
- William A. Diedrich
- Paul S. Fleck
- Lauren S. Gafa
- L. Brent Garrett
- Evan J. Gautier
- Carol A. Gefis
- Jennifer S. Grock
- Kieran D. Hartley
- Amber S. Healy
- Jonathan Judge
- David Kang
- Nate J. Kowalski
- Geoff D. La Val
- Joshua N. Lange
- Catherine M. Lee
- Thomas A. Lenz
- David M. Lester
- Martin S. Li
- Mia A. Lomedico
- Jorge J. Luna
- Brian D. Martin
- Bronte A. Mehdian
- Ronald W. Novotny
- Michael J. O'Connor, Jr.
- Aaron V. O'Donnell
- Shawn M. Ogle
- Sharon J. Ormond
- Joseph E. Pelochino
- Chesley D. Quaide
- Todd M. Robbins
- Irma Rodríguez Moisa
- Saba Salamatian
- Casandra P. Secord
- Jon M. Setoguchi
- Ann K. Smith
- Amber M. Solano
- Susana P. Solano
- Susan M. Steward
- April Szabo
- Jay G. Trinnaman
- Jonathan S. Vick
- Michael R. Watts
- Robert L. Wenzel
- Brian M. Wheeler
- Glen A. Williams
Archives
2023
2022
- November 2022
- October 2022
- September 2022
- July 2022
- June 2022
- May 2022
- April 2022
- March 2022
- February 2022
- January 2022
2021
- November 2021
- October 2021
- September 2021
- July 2021
- June 2021
- May 2021
- April 2021
- March 2021
- February 2021
- January 2021
2020
- December 2020
- October 2020
- August 2020
- July 2020
- June 2020
- May 2020
- April 2020
- March 2020
- January 2020
2019
- December 2019
- November 2019
- October 2019
- September 2019
- August 2019
- June 2019
- May 2019
- April 2019
- March 2019
- February 2019
2018
- December 2018
- November 2018
- October 2018
- September 2018
- August 2018
- July 2018
- June 2018
- May 2018
- March 2018
- February 2018
- January 2018
2017
- December 2017
- November 2017
- October 2017
- September 2017
- August 2017
- June 2017
- May 2017
- March 2017
- February 2017
2016
- December 2016
- November 2016
- October 2016
- September 2016
- August 2016
- July 2016
- June 2016
- May 2016
- April 2016
- March 2016
- February 2016
2015
- December 2015
- October 2015
- September 2015
- August 2015
- July 2015
- June 2015
- May 2015
- April 2015
- March 2015
- February 2015
- January 2015
2014
- November 2014
- October 2014
- September 2014
- August 2014
- July 2014
- June 2014
- May 2014
- April 2014
- February 2014
- January 2014
2013
- October 2013
- September 2013
- July 2013
- June 2013
- May 2013
- April 2013
- March 2013
- February 2013
- January 2013
2012
- October 2012
- September 2012
- August 2012
- July 2012
- June 2012
- May 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
2011
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011