2011 Litigation Watch: Cases Pending in the California Supreme CourtFirst Quarter 2011 – Newsletters California Update Employment Law
- Sonic-Calabasa A, Inc. v. Moreno (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 546. Petition for review after reversal of order denying motion to compel arbitration. Can a mandatory employment arbitration agreement be enforced prior to the conclusion of an administrative proceeding conducted by the Labor Commissioner concerning an employee’s statutory wage claim?
- Harris v. City of Santa Monica (2010) 181 Cal.App.4th 1094. Petition for review after reversal and remand of judgment on special jury verdict. Does the “mixed-motive” defense apply to employment discrimination claims under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (Cal. Gov’t Code §§ 12900- 12996)?
- Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Superior Court (Hohnbaum) (2008) 80 Cal.Rptr.3d 781. Petition for review after grant of petition for peremptory writ of mandate. This case presents issues concerning the proper interpretation of California’s statues and regulations governing an employer’s duty to provide meal and rest breaks to hourly workers.
Other cases pending and deferred in the Supreme Court due to Brinker:
Brinkley v. Public Storage, Inc. (2008) 167 Cal. App. 4th 1278 (2008).
Brookler v. Radioshack Corp. (2010) 2010 WL 33341816 (non-published opinion).
Faulkinbury v. Boyd v. Associates, Inc. (2010) 185 Cal.App.4th 1363.
Hernandez v. Chipotle Mexican Grill (2010) 189 Cal.App.4th 751.
- Kirby v. Immoos Fire Protection (2007) 113 Cal.Rptr.3d 370. Issues limited on review - remand of judgment ordering attorney’s fees to employer. (1) Does Labor Code §1194 apply to a cause of action alleging meal and rest period violations or may attorney’s fees be awarded under Labor Code § 218.5? (2) Is the analysis affected by whether the claims for meal and rest periods are brought alone or are accompanied by claims for minimum wage and overtime?
- Sullivan v. Oracle Corp., (9th Cir. No. 06-56649; 557 F. 3d 979) The Court will decide questions of California law presented in a matter pending in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The questions presented are: (1) Does the California Labor Code apply to overtime work performed in California for a California-based employer by out-of-state plaintiffs in the circumstances of this case, such that overtime pay is required for work in excess of eight hours per day or in excess of 40 hours per week? (2) Does Business and Professions Code § 17200, et seq. apply to the overtime work described in question one? (3) Does § 17200, et seq. apply to overtime work performed outside of California for a California-based employer by out-of-state plaintiffs in the circumstances of this case if the employer failed to comply with the overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Action (29 U.S.C. section 207) et seq.)?