Justia California Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

Plaintiff sued her former employer, Dolgen California, LLC (Dollar General), to recover civil penalties under the Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 for various Labor Code violations suffered by her or by other employees. Dollar General moved to compel arbitration, which the superior court denied. In November 2021, the Fifth Appellate District affirmed the trial court’s order. That affirmance was vacated by the United States Supreme Court when it granted Dollar General’s petition for writ of certiorari and remanded the case for further consideration in light of Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana.   The Fifth Appellate District reversed in part the order denying the motion to compel arbitration judgment. The court affirmed Plaintiff’s Type O claims. The court reversed as to Plaintiff’s Type A claims, and the court remanded the matter with directions that the trial court enters a new order requiring Plaintiff to arbitrate the Type A claims. The court concluded Viking River and the Federal Arbitration Act do not invalidate the rule of California law that a provision in an arbitration agreement purporting to waive an employee’s right to pursue representative actions is not enforceable as to representative claims pursued under PAGA. Second, the severability clause in the arbitration agreement allows the unenforceable waiver provision to be stricken from the arbitration agreement. Third, the surviving provisions of the agreement require arbitration of the PAGA claims that seek to recover civil penalties for Labor Code violations suffered by Plaintiff. View "Galarsa v. Dolgen California, LLC" on Justia Law

Plaintiff appeals from the trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of her former employer, respondent Kaiser Foundation Hospitals (Kaiser). The Second Appellate District reversed the judgment. The court explained that as part of a round of employee layoffs, Kaiser planned, at least tentatively, to terminate Plaintiff before Plaintiff became disabled. Kaiser’s plan to terminate Plaintiff before she became disabled, by itself, was not discrimination against Plaintiff because of a disability. But Kaiser did not complete its layoff plans—or, a reasonable jury could find, make its final determination to terminate Plaintiff—until after Plaintiff had become disabled. On the record here, there was evidence from which a reasonable jury could conclude that Kaiser’s ultimate decision to terminate Plaintiff was motivated, at least in substantial part, by concerns Kaiser had about Plaintiff’s disability. That allows Plaintiff’s complaint to survive summary judgment. View "Lin v. Kaiser Foundation Hospitals" on Justia Law

The last clause of section 248.5 (e) of California’s Healthy Workplaces, Healthy Families Act of 2014 (the Act) (Labor Code, § 245 et seq.) was the focus of this appeal. Plaintiff Ana Wood filed a Private Attorney General Act of 2004 (PAGA) action against her former employer Kaiser Foundation Hospitals seeking penalties for alleged violations of the Act. The trial court sustained Kaiser’s demurrer without leave to amend, determining that a PAGA action was one brought “on behalf of the public” and since it sought only civil penalties, was prohibited by section 248.5 (e). After its independent review, the Court of Appeal reached a different conclusion: the statute’s text and history provided compelling evidence that the phrase “on behalf of the public as provided under applicable state law” in section 248.5 (e) was intended to refer to actions prosecuted under the Unfair Competition Law (UCL)—not PAGA. Accordingly, the judgment of dismissal was reversed. View "Wood v. Kaiser Foundation Hospitals" on Justia Law

JSC, the property owner, hired Cahill as the general contractor on the residential rehabilitation project. Cahill hired Janus as a subcontractor for demolition work. Degala was a Janus employee. The project site was in a known high-crime area. The contract between JSC and Cahill required Cahill to “take reasonable precautions for the safety of, and ... provide reasonable protection to prevent damage, injury or loss to ... employees on the work and other persons.” The subcontract between Cahill and Janus provided that Janus’s scope of work excluded “[s]ite security,” and that Janus was “responsible for securing [its] own tools and equipment.” Janus agreed to comply with Environmental, Health & Safety guidelines.Degala was attacked and seriously injured by unknown assailants while working at the site, He sued JSC and Cahill, alleging that they breached their duty to take reasonable security precautions. The trial court entered summary judgment, finding Degala’s claims barred by the “Privette doctrine,” under which the hirer of an independent contractor is not liable for on-the-job injuries sustained by the contractor’s employees; the court rejected Degala’s argument that defendants could be liable under the “Hooker exception,” which applies when the hirer retains control over any part of the contractor’s work and exercises that control in a way that affirmatively contributes to the plaintiff’s injury. The court of appeal reversed, finding triable issues of fact as to whether the defendants are liable under a retained control theory. View "Degala v. John Stewart Co." on Justia Law

Under Health and Safety Code 101850, Alameda, a hospital authority was created as “a public agency for purposes of eligibility with respect to grants and other funding and loan guarantee programs.” The plaintiffs worked for Alameda and claim Alamed “automatically deducted ½ hour from each workday” to account for a meal period, although employees “were not allowed or discouraged from clocking out for meal periods.” The trial court dismissed their sis class action Labor Code claims, reasoning that Alameda was a “statutorily created public agency” beyond the reach of the Labor Code and Industrial Welfare Commission (IWC) Wage Order invoked in the complaint. The court held that a Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) claim would not lie because Alameda is not a “person” within the meaning of section 18, there was no underlying statutory violation from which the PAGA claim could derive, and Alameda’s “public agency” status exempted it from punitive damages.The court of appeal affirmed the dismissal of the fourth claim but otherwise reversed. Alameda lacks many of the hallmarks of sovereignty. Subjecting Alameda to liability would not infringe upon any sovereign governmental powers. Alameda is not a “municipal corporation.” but is not excluded from the category of “governmental entit[ies].” There are at least some Labor Code violations for which a PAGA suit against Alameda may proceed. View "Stone v. Alameda Health System" on Justia Law

Appellants (the brothers) appealed following a judgment affirming an arbitration award that resolves an employment dispute between the brothers, their former employer, defendant and respondent U-Haul Co. of California (U-Haul), and their former manager at U-Haul and Respondent. On appeal, the brothers challenge the court’s order compelling their dispute to arbitration, arguing that the arbitration agreement they signed with U-Haul is unconscionable and thus unenforceable.   The Second Appellate District affirmed the order compelling arbitration. The brothers also challenged the court’s order, issued before the court ordered the matter to arbitration, denying them leave to amend their complaint. The proposed amendment includes a Labor Code cause of action against Sandusky for unpaid wages regarding work the brothers allegedly performed at Respondent’s residence solely for his personal benefit. The court saw no basis for which the trial court could deny the brothers leave to assert such a claim. The brothers’ proposed amendment also includes a claim for relief under California’s Private Attorney General Act (the PAGA) based on the Labor Code violations by U-Haul and/or Respondent reflected in the proposed amended complaint. But the brothers cannot establish PAGA standing to bring a claim based on Labor Code violations by U-Haul already alleged in the operative complaint, because the arbitrator found no such violations occurred, and that finding has issue preclusive effect. The arbitrator’s finding does not affect the brothers’ ability to establish PAGA standing based on the proposed alleged Labor Code violation by Respondent involving unpaid wages; however, the court saw no other fatal deficiencies in the proposed PAGA claim against Respondent. View "Rocha v. U-Haul Co. of Cal." on Justia Law

Casandra Murrey, a single, 46-year-old female, worked for General Electric Company (GE) as a product sales specialist for ultrasound equipment. The complaint alleged GE hired Murrey in early 2018 and she was a “top performer.” In 2019, GE hired Joseph Gorczyca, III. In January 2020, he became Murrey’s direct supervisor, and he engaged in continuous sexual harassment in the workplace with Murrey and others. She alleged GE “never properly completed an immediate [n]or appropriate investigation or took any . . . corrective action. Instead, [GE] later informed [her] that Gorczyca was ‘no longer with the company.’” Thereafter, GE “commenced an illegal pattern of retaliatory behavior against Murrey because [she] engage[ed] in protective activity” that included “denying appropriate support for [her] sales position” and refusing to promote her. Eight months after Murrey filed the complaint, GE moved to compel arbitration. GE sent all new hires a “welcome e-mail” to the new hire’s personal e-mail address that contained a link to GE’s electronic onboarding system/portal. Each document was assigned a separate task and the new hire signed employment-related agreements using his or her electronic signature. Based on this process and GE’s other security measures, GE’s lead HR specialist Michelle Thayer concluded Murrey’s electronic signature on an Acknowledgment was made by Murrey that Murrey assented to an included arbitration in the onboarding materials. The trial court granted the motion to compel arbitration, concluding:(1) GE met its burden of showing the arbitration agreement covered Murrey’s claims; (2) all of Murrey’s causes of action arose out of or were connected with her employment; and (3) Murrey met her burden showing procedural unconscionability because it was a contract of adhesion; but (5) Murrey failed to show a sufficient degree of substantive unconscionability to render the agreement unenforceable. The Court of Appeal reversed, finding the arbitration agreement in this case contained a high degree of procedural unconscionability. "When we consider the procedural and substantively unconscionable provisions together, they indicate a concerted effort to impose on an employee a forum with distinct advantages for the employer." The Court issued a writ of mandate on the trial court to vacate the order compelling arbitration, and to enter a new order denying the motion. View "Murrey v. Superior Court" on Justia Law

Petitioner Nicholas Casson was a firefighter for the City of Santa Ana for 27 years. In 2012, he retired and began collecting a pension from California Public Employees Retirement System (CalPERS). He immediately started a second career with the Orange County Fire Authority (OCFA), where he was eligible for a pension under respondent Orange County Employees Retirement System (OCERS). He did not elect reciprocity between the two pensions, which would have allowed him to import his years of service under CalPERS to the OCERS pension. He started as a first-year firefighter for purposes of the OCERS pension and immediately began collecting pension payments from CalPERS. Five years into the job, he suffered an on-the-job injury that permanently disabled him. He applied for and received a disability pension from OCERS, which, normally, would have paid out 50 percent of his salary for the remainder of his life. However, because he was receiving a CalPERS retirement, OCERS imposed a “disability offset” pursuant to Government Code section 31838.5, the statute central to this appeal. This resulted in a monthly benefit reduction from $4,222.81 to $1,123.87. After exhausting his administrative remedies, Casson filed a petition for a writ of mandate; court denied the petition, finding that the plain language of section 31838.5 required a disability offset. The Court of Appeal reversed: Casson’s service retirement from CalPERS was not a disability allowance and thus should not have been included in the calculation of Casson’s total disability allowance. OCERS should not have imposed an offset, and the trial court should have issued a writ of mandate. View "Casson v. Orange County Employees Retirement System" on Justia Law

Plaintiff signed an arbitration contract with an employer called Intelex Enterprises, LLC. While working for Intelex, Plaintiff also worked for other firms (Other Firms). These Other Firms were legally separate from Intelex but functionally related to it. The Other Firms did not contract for arbitration with Plaintiff. After termination, Plaintiff sued the Other Firms but not Intelex: Intelex has never been a party to the case. The Other Firms moved to compel arbitration based on Plaintiff’s agreement with Intelex. The trial court denied the Other Firms’ motion to enforce a contract they had not signed.   The Second Appellate District affirmed. The court held that the Other Firms cannot equitably estop Defendant because they do not show she is trying to profit from some unfair action. They have no proof of agency. And they are not third-party beneficiaries of Intelex’s contract. The court explained that the Other Firms point to six places in the record they say show agency, but these materials do not measure up. The citation to Plaintiff’s complaint spotlights text that omits Intelex and cannot show agency. A different citation is to their attorney’s declaration recounting irrelevant procedural history. Other citations refer to Plaintiff’s admission that she worked for both Intelex and the Other Firms. This admission does not establish agency. View "Hernandez v. Meridian Management Services, LLC" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs-appellants Jennifer Bitner and Evelina Herrera were employed as licensed vocational nurses by defendant-respondent California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR). They filed a class action suit against CDCR alleging that: (1) while assigned to duties that included one-on-one suicide monitoring, they were subjected to acts of sexual harassment by prison inmates; and (2) CDCR failed to prevent or remedy the situation in violation of the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), Government Code section 12940 et seq. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of CDCR on the ground that it was entitled to statutory immunity under section 844.6, which generally provided that “a public entity is not liable for . . . [a]n injury proximately caused by any prisoner.” Plaintiffs appealed, arguing that, as a matter of first impression, the Court of Appeal should interpret section 844.6 to include an exception for claims brought pursuant to FEHA. Plaintiffs also argued that, even if claims under FEHA were not exempt from the immunity granted in section 844.6, the evidence presented on summary judgment did not establish that their injuries were “ ‘proximately caused’ ” by prisoners. The Court of Appeal disagreed on both points and affirmed the judgment. View "Bitner v. Dept. of Corrections & Rehabilitation" on Justia Law