Justia California Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

An agricultural company opposed a unionization effort initiated by the United Farm Workers of America, who sought certification as the exclusive bargaining representative for the company's employees under a new statutory procedure. The union filed a Majority Support Petition with the Agricultural Labor Relations Board, presenting evidence that a majority of employees supported union representation. The company responded by submitting objections and employee declarations alleging misconduct by the union during the signature collection process. The Board's regional director investigated and determined that the union had met the statutory criteria for certification, leading the Board to certify the union as the employees' representative.Following the certification, the company filed additional objections with the Agricultural Labor Relations Board, including constitutional challenges to the underlying statute. The Board dismissed most objections and set others for a hearing, but stated it could not rule on constitutional questions. While administrative proceedings were ongoing, the company filed a petition in the Superior Court of Kern County seeking to enjoin the Board from proceeding and to declare the statute unconstitutional. The Board and the union argued that the court lacked jurisdiction due to statutory limits on judicial review, but the superior court nonetheless issued a preliminary injunction halting the Board's proceedings. Appeals and writ petitions followed, consolidating the matter before the reviewing court.The Court of Appeal of the State of California, Fifth Appellate District, held that the superior court lacked jurisdiction to consider the challenge at this stage. The court reaffirmed that under California law, employers may not directly challenge union certification decisions in court except in extraordinary circumstances, which were not present here. The proper procedure is for employers to wait until an unfair labor practice proceeding or mandatory mediation is completed and a final order is issued before seeking judicial review. The court reversed the preliminary injunction and ordered dismissal of the company’s petition for lack of jurisdiction. View "Wonderful Nurseries v. Agricultural Labor Relations Board" on Justia Law

A nonprofit religious organization operates several Zen Buddhist temples in California, providing residential training programs where participants, known as Work Practice Apprentices (WPAs), live and work at the temples. Participants perform various tasks, including cleaning, cooking, and guest services, as part of their Zen training. Upon completing the WPA program, individuals may become staff members, continuing similar duties while residing at the temple. The plaintiff participated as a WPA and later as a staff member, performing duties such as guest services, food preparation, and facility maintenance. She received modest monthly stipends and room and board, but ultimately challenged the compensation as inadequate under California wage-and-hour laws.After her affiliation with the organization ended, the plaintiff filed a wage claim with the Labor Commissioner, seeking unpaid regular and overtime wages, meal period premium wages, and liquidated damages. The Labor Commissioner ruled in her favor against the organization and two individual leaders, holding the individuals personally liable as employers under Labor Code section 558.1, and awarded her $149,177.15. The defendants appealed to the Superior Court of San Francisco, posting an undertaking only on behalf of the organization, not the individual defendants. The trial court denied the plaintiff’s motion to dismiss the appeals by the individuals for lack of undertakings and granted summary judgment for all defendants, finding the ministerial exception under the First Amendment barred the wage-and-hour claims.The California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Five, reversed. It held that the ministerial exception does not bar wage-and-hour claims by ministers unless such claims would require judicial inquiry into ecclesiastical matters or religious doctrine. Because there was no evidence that adjudicating the plaintiff’s wage claims would entangle the court in religious concerns, the exception did not apply. The court also held that the trial court lacked jurisdiction over the individual defendants’ appeals due to their failure to post the required undertakings. View "Lorenzo v. San Francisco Zen Center" on Justia Law

Lauren Brown worked for a restaurant operated by Dave & Buster’s in Westchester, California, from November 2016 to April 2018. In June 2019, she filed a representative action under the Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA), alleging various Labor Code violations, including failure to provide meal and rest periods, vacation pay, and accurate wage statements. Brown’s lawsuit was one of several PAGA actions filed against the same employer between June 2018 and June 2019. The employer had previously settled with another PAGA plaintiff, Andrade, whose amended complaint included claims similar to Brown’s, including vacation pay violations.The Superior Court of Los Angeles County initially stayed Brown’s case, finding it substantially identical to an earlier action. After the Andrade action settled and the San Diego County Superior Court approved the settlement, Dave & Buster’s moved for judgment on the pleadings in Brown’s case, arguing that claim preclusion barred her claims and that she lacked standing to pursue violations occurring after the Andrade settlement. Brown opposed, arguing that Andrade had not properly exhausted administrative remedies for her amended claims because she filed her amended complaint only 35 days after submitting an amended notice to the Labor and Workforce Development Agency, rather than waiting the statutory 65 days.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Eight, reviewed the trial court’s order independently. The appellate court held that Andrade’s failure to strictly comply with the 65-day waiting period was a harmless defect, as she substantially fulfilled the purpose of the pre-filing notice requirement and the Agency had an opportunity to object to the settlement but did not. The court found that all elements of claim preclusion were satisfied and affirmed the trial court’s judgment, dismissing Brown’s complaint with prejudice. View "Brown v. Dave & Buster's of California" on Justia Law

A former employee filed a labor claim against her employer and the employer’s business, seeking unpaid overtime and other compensation. The Labor Commissioner awarded her over $74,000. The decision was served by mail, triggering a 15-day deadline for the employer to appeal to the superior court and to either post an undertaking or seek a waiver of that requirement. The employer retained a third-party filing service, which attempted to file the appeal and waiver motion electronically on the last permissible day. The filing was rejected by the court clerk, and the documents were filed in person the following day, one day late.The Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco determined that the employer’s appeal and waiver motion were untimely. The court found that the statutory deadline for appealing a Labor Commissioner decision is mandatory and jurisdictional, and that it lacked jurisdiction to consider the late filings. The employer argued that the deadline should be equitably tolled due to the filing service’s error, but the trial court rejected this argument.The California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Five, reviewed the case. The court held that the statutory deadline for appealing a Labor Commissioner decision and for seeking a waiver of the undertaking requirement is mandatory and jurisdictional, and cannot be extended for reasons such as mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect. The only exception is for fraud, which was not alleged. The court also held that the tolling provision in Code of Civil Procedure section 1010.6 does not apply to notices of appeal from Labor Commissioner decisions. The court affirmed the superior court’s order dismissing the appeal as untimely. View "Dobarro v. Kim" on Justia Law

Anton’s Services Inc. was a subcontractor on two public works projects in San Diego: the Torrey Pines Road Project and the Voltaire Street Project. On both projects, Anton’s classified its workers under the “Tree Maintenance” prevailing wage category, paying them accordingly. The Division of Labor Standards Enforcement (DLSE) investigated and determined that Anton’s work was construction-related and should have been classified under the “Laborer (Engineering Construction)” category, which carries a higher prevailing wage. Additionally, Anton’s failed to comply with apprenticeship requirements, including submitting contract award information, employing the required ratio of apprentices, and requesting apprentices from local committees.After the DLSE issued civil wage and penalty assessments for both projects, Anton’s challenged these findings in administrative proceedings before the Director of Industrial Relations. The parties submitted stipulated facts and documentary evidence. The Director affirmed the DLSE’s assessments, finding Anton’s had misclassified workers, underpaid prevailing wages, failed to comply with apprenticeship requirements, and was liable for penalties and liquidated damages. The Director also found Anton’s violations were willful, given its prior record and lack of prompt correction.Anton’s then sought judicial review in the Superior Court of San Diego County through a petition for writ of administrative mandamus. The trial court, applying the substantial evidence standard, upheld the Director’s decision and rejected Anton’s attempt to introduce extra-record evidence.On appeal, the California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division One, reviewed the administrative record for substantial evidence. The court affirmed the trial court’s judgment, holding that Anton’s misclassified workers, underpaid prevailing wages, failed to comply with apprenticeship requirements, and was properly assessed penalties and liquidated damages. The court clarified that liquidated damages are owed until wages are actually paid to workers, not merely withheld by a contractor. The judgment was affirmed. View "Anton's Services v. Hagen" on Justia Law

Two former service technicians at an auto dealership in Simi Valley alleged that their employer’s compensation plan violated California labor laws. The dealership had previously paid technicians on a piece-rate basis, but switched to an hourly pay plan in December 2014, compensating technicians at double the minimum wage for all hours recorded on a biometric time clock, with additional “flag bonus pay” for certain tasks. The plaintiffs claimed they were not fully compensated for all hours worked, including overtime and rest periods, and brought claims under the Labor Code, the Unfair Competition Law, and the Private Attorney General Act (PAGA) on behalf of themselves and other employees.The Superior Court of Ventura County initially ordered arbitration, but withdrew the case from arbitration at the plaintiffs’ request. Both parties filed motions for summary adjudication regarding the legality of the pay plan, which the court denied, finding triable issues of fact. After a bench trial, the court found the plaintiffs had not met their burden of proof, noting that their evidence was insufficient and lacked specific examples to support their claims. Judgment was entered in favor of the employer on all claims.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Six, reviewed the case. It held that the dealership’s hourly pay plan did not violate the “no borrowing rule” established in Gonzalez v. Downtown LA Motors, LP, nor did it violate Labor Code section 226.2. The court found that technicians were paid at least double the minimum wage for all hours worked and that any bonus pay was in addition to, not a substitute for, hourly wages. The court also affirmed judgment for the employer on the PAGA claim, finding the plaintiffs failed to provide adequate evidence or an adequate record to support their allegations. The judgment was affirmed. View "Mora v. C.E. Enterprises" on Justia Law

Several employees of the City and County of San Francisco who joined the city’s retirement system at age 40 or older and later retired due to disability challenged the method used to calculate their disability retirement benefits. The city’s retirement system uses two formulas: Formula 1, which provides a higher benefit if certain thresholds are met, and Formula 2, which imputes service years until age 60 but caps the benefit at a percentage of final compensation. Plaintiffs argued that Formula 2 discriminates against employees who enter the system at age 40 or above, in violation of the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA).Initially, the San Francisco City and County Superior Court sustained the city’s demurrer, finding the plaintiffs had not timely filed an administrative charge. The California Court of Appeal reversed that decision, allowing the case to proceed. After class certification and cross-motions for summary judgment, the trial court found triable issues and held a bench trial. At trial, plaintiffs presented expert testimony based on hypothetical calculations, while the city’s expert criticized the lack of actual data analysis and highlighted factors such as breaks in service and purchased credits.The California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Four, reviewed the trial court’s post-trial decision. The appellate court affirmed the trial court’s judgment, holding that the plaintiffs failed to prove intentional age discrimination or disparate impact under FEHA. The court found substantial evidence that Formula 2 was motivated by pension status and credited years of service, not age. The plaintiffs’ evidence was insufficient because it relied on hypotheticals rather than actual data showing a disproportionate adverse effect on the protected group. The appellate court also affirmed the denial of leave to amend the complaint, finding no reversible error. The judgment in favor of the city was affirmed. View "Carroll v. City & County of S.F." on Justia Law

Orlando Rodriguez, while employed as a mechanic, suffered significant head and brain injuries in November 2016. His employer’s insurer, administered by Illinois Midwest Insurance Agency, accepted the injuries as work-related. Beginning in September 2018, Rodriguez’s treating physician repeatedly requested home health care services in six-week increments, which Illinois Midwest generally approved, sometimes after utilization review. In September 2019, a new request for home health care was denied by a utilization review physician, and the denial was communicated to all relevant parties.Rodriguez challenged the denial by seeking an expedited hearing before a workers’ compensation judge. The judge found Rodriguez was entitled to ongoing home health care, reasoning that Illinois Midwest could not terminate the treatment without substantive medical evidence of a change in condition. The judge concluded the utilization review decision was “moot” due to Rodriguez’s ongoing need and relied on Patterson v. The Oaks Farm (2014) 79 Cal.Comp.Cases 910. Illinois Midwest petitioned for reconsideration, but the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) affirmed the judge’s decision, again relying on Patterson and finding no evidence of changed circumstances.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Three, reviewed the case. The court held that, following legislative reforms in 2004 and 2013, disputes over medical necessity for requested treatments must be resolved through the statutory utilization review and independent medical review processes, not by the WCAB or courts, even for ongoing or continual treatment. The court rejected Patterson’s contrary rule for post-2013 injuries, finding no statutory exception for ongoing treatment. The court annulled the Appeals Board’s decision and remanded the matter for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. View "Illinois Midwest Insurance Agency, LLC v. Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board" on Justia Law

Two former employees of the University of California, after leaving their positions, delayed applying for retirement benefits under the University of California Retirement Plan (the Plan) until several years after reaching the normal retirement age of 60. When they eventually applied, both requested retroactive monthly retirement payments dating back to when they first became eligible. The Regents of the University of California denied these requests, interpreting the Plan to provide benefits only from the date of application forward. The plaintiffs, representing a class of similarly situated former employees, argued that the Plan entitled them to retroactive benefits or, alternatively, that The Regents breached a fiduciary duty by failing to inform them that retroactive benefits were unavailable.The Superior Court of Alameda County granted summary adjudication to The Regents on the breach of contract claim, finding that the Plan did not provide for retroactive monthly benefits prior to a member’s application. The court later held a bench trial on the breach of fiduciary duty claim, ultimately concluding that The Regents had not breached its duty to inform members about their retirement options, as the Plan documents and related communications were sufficient to fully and fairly inform a reasonable plan beneficiary.The California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Four, reviewed the case. It held that the Plan’s language unambiguously requires a member to apply for retirement benefits before those benefits become payable, and that retroactive monthly benefits are not available for periods before an application is filed. The court also affirmed that The Regents met its fiduciary duty of disclosure by providing adequate information about the Plan and its options. The judgment in favor of The Regents was affirmed. View "Mass v. Regents of the University of California" on Justia Law

A company that provides employee management services hired an employee in California in September 2021. At the start of her employment, she completed onboarding documents that did not mention arbitration. About five months later, she was asked to sign additional documents, including an arbitration agreement, a voluntary dispute resolution policy, and a confidentiality and non-disclosure agreement (CND). The arbitration agreement required most employment-related disputes to be resolved through binding arbitration, with certain exceptions for claims related to confidential information. The CND allowed the company to bring certain claims in court and permitted the company to seek injunctive relief without posting a bond or proving actual damages. The employee later filed a lawsuit alleging various employment law violations.The Solano County Superior Court reviewed the company’s motion to compel arbitration. The company argued that the arbitration agreement was enforceable and, if any provision was found unenforceable, it should be severed. The employee opposed, arguing the agreement was unconscionable due to the manner in which it was presented and its one-sided terms. The trial court found the arbitration agreement to be both procedurally and substantively unconscionable, particularly because it forced the employee’s claims into arbitration while allowing the company’s likely claims to proceed in court, and because of a confidentiality provision that restricted informal discovery. The court denied the motion to compel arbitration and declined to sever the offending provisions, finding the agreement permeated by unconscionability.The California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Three, affirmed the trial court’s order. The appellate court held that the arbitration agreement and the CND, read together, were unconscionable due to lack of mutuality and an overly broad confidentiality provision. The court also found no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s refusal to sever the unconscionable terms and concluded that any error in denying a statement of decision was harmless. View "Gurganus v. IGS Solutions LLC" on Justia Law