Justia California Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

The Court of Appeal held that the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act of 1994 (FAAAA) does not preempt application of California's ABC test, originally set forth in Dynamex Operations W. v. Superior Court (2018) 4 Cal.5th 903, and eventually codified by Assembly Bill 2257 (AB 2257), to determine whether a federally licensed interstate motor carrier has correctly classified its truck drivers as independent contractors.The court held that defendants have not demonstrated, as they must under People ex rel. Harris v. Pac Anchor Transportation, Inc. (2014) 59 Cal.4th 772, 785-87, that application of the ABC test prohibits motor carriers from using independent contractors or otherwise directly affects motor carriers' prices, routes, or services. Furthermore, nothing in Pac Anchor nor the FAAAA's legislative history suggests Congress intended to preempt a worker-classification test applicable to all employers in the state. The court granted a peremptory writ of mandate directing respondent court to vacate its order granting in part defendants' motion in limine, and enter a new order denying that motion because the statutory amendments implemented by AB 2257 are not preempted by the FAAAA. View "People v. Superior Court (Cal Cartage Transportation Express, LLC)" on Justia Law

Plaintiff Richard Brown appealed a judgment confirming an arbitration award in favor of defendant TGS Management Company (TGS) in an employment contract dispute. The specific statutory right at issue in the underlying dispute was Brown’s right to work in his chosen field free of contractual restraints on competition. The Legislature expressed that right in the simple but sweeping language of Business and Professions Code section 16600: “Except as provided in this chapter, every contract by which anyone is restrained from engaging in a lawful profession, trade or business of any kind is to that extent void.” Brown worked for TGS for over 10 years. During that time, a substantial portion of Brown’s compensation was a yearly bonus which rewarded Brown’s performance over the previous year with a sizable cash award to be paid over the next two years. In February 2016, TGS terminated Brown’s employment without cause effective March 2016. Over the next month, Brown and TGS attempted to negotiate a confidential separation agreement. TGS prepared a settlement offer in the form of a draft separation and general release agreement (the Draft Separation Agreement), but Brown rejected the offer. TGS terminated Brown as planned, making the termination “without cause” so Brown could keep two bonuses he had earned but not yet received (the deferred bonuses), given the two-year bonus structure in place. In October 2016, Brown filed a complaint against TGS stating claims for declaratory relief, injunctive relief, and reformation of the arbitrator-selection process in the Employment Agreement. The declaratory relief claim sought a declaration Brown could compete with TGS without risking a damages claim for breaching the Employment Agreement or jeopardizing his two deferred bonuses. Brown also sought an injunction against enforcement of the covenant not to compete. Ten days after filing the complaint, Brown filed a petition to compel arbitration. TGS consented, and answered, stating it would not seek to enforce the no-compete clause in Brown's contract, but that he forfeited the two bonuses at issue when he filed a copy of the Draft Separation Agreement, which disclosed the identity of TGS' clients and its bonus formula for computing employee bonuses. The arbitrator granted TGS' motion for summary judgment. On appeal, Brown contended the Court of Appeal had to vacate the judgment because the arbitration award exceeded the arbitrator's powers, “and the award cannot be corrected without affecting the merits of the decision[.]” The Court concluded the arbitrator exceeded his power in issuing an award enforcing provisions of an employment agreement which illegally restricted Brown’s right to work. Consequently, judgment was reversed and the matter remanded for further proceedings. View "Brown v. TGS Management Co., LLC" on Justia Law

Defendants Fusion Buffet, Inc., Xiao Yan Chen, and Zhao Jia Lin appealed postjudgment orders of the trial court regarding attorney fees and costs. Cruz was employed as a server at the Great Plaza Buffet restaurant, which was operated by Fusion Buffet, from approximately February 2014 to late January 2016. Chen and Lin served as officers and owners of Fusion Buffet and managed the Great Plaza Buffet restaurant. In her complaint, Cruz alleged defendants: (1) failed to pay minimum wage; (2) failed to pay overtime; (3) failed to pay meal period compensation; (4) failed to pay rest period compensation; (5) failed to furnish timely and accurate wage and hour statements; (6) converted earned gratuities; (7) took unlawful deductions from wages; (8) failed to indemnify for all necessary expenditures or losses; and other causes of action stemming from her work at Fusion Buffet. In the complaint, Cruz sought to impose liability against Chen and Lin under an alter ego theory, alleging, among other things, that Chen and Lin commingled their assets with those of Fusion Buffet and that they failed to maintain corporate formalities. After a three-day bench trial, the court found in Cruz's favor on seven out of ten causes of action, and in favor of Fusion Buffet on the remaining three. The trial court determined Cruz was the prevailing party and found she was entitled to recover fees and costs incurred. The Court of Appeal determined defendants failed to demonstrate reversible error in the trial court's determinations with respect to the postjudgment orders and affirmed them all. View "Cruz v. Fusion Buffet, Inc." on Justia Law

Defendant Wedbush Securities, Inc. (Wedbush) was a securities broker-dealer firm that provided financial planning and investment products through its financial advisors. It classified its California financial advisors as exempt under the administrative exemption to California wage-and-hour law; the administrative exemption only applied if an employee earned a monthly “salary” equivalent to at least twice the state minimum wage. Wedbush pays its financial advisors on a commission-only basis. It uses a computer program to track the trades they make in a given month and then calculates the compensation owed based on what commission tier the employee met that month. The higher the employee’s total monthly gross product sales, the higher the percentage used to calculate the employee’s monthly commission payment. The central issue in this case is whether the Wedbush compensation model meets that administrative exemption requirement. The Court of Appeal determined the compensation plan based solely on commissions, with recoverable advances on future commissions, did not qualify as a “salary” for purposes of this exemption. Since the trial court found the employees in question were exempt and entered judgment for the employer, the Court reversed and remanded this matter for further proceedings. View "Semprini v. Wedbush Securities, Inc." on Justia Law

The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's denial of a writ of mandate to compel the Civil Service Commission to complete a deputy sheriff's administrative appeal. The court held that a deputy sheriff who has obtained and continues to receive service-connected disability retirement benefits is no longer an employee of the county, and thus his appeal to the Civil Service Commission of his discharge by the Los Angeles Sheriff's Department, filed before his disability retirement, is no longer viable. The court held that the Commission has no authority to order reinstatement or any other relief to a retired person whose future status as an employee is not at issue. View "Deiro v. L.A. County Civil Service Commission" on Justia Law

Olson is a driver for Lyft, whose terms of service include an agreement he could not bring a Private Attorney General Act (PAGA), Labor Code 2698, claim in court, and that disputes with Lyft must be resolved by individual arbitration. Olson sued Lyft alleging six PAGA claims. Lyft petitioned to compel to arbitration. The petition acknowledged that a 2014 precedent (Iskanian) precluded enforcement of PAGA waivers, but asserted that Iskanian was wrongly decided and was no longer good law in light of the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2018 decision, Epic Systems. The trial court rejected Lyft’s arguments.The court of appeal affirmed. Epic Systems addressed the question of whether the NLRA renders unenforceable arbitration agreements containing class action waivers that interfere with workers’ right to engage in “concerted activities.” It did not address private attorney general laws like PAGA or qui tam suit. View "Olson v. Lyft, Inc." on Justia Law

Finch began his employment with Midwest in 2014. His employment agreement stated: “This Agreement shall be construed in accordance with Ohio Law" and that any litigation "must be venued in Franklin County, Ohio.” In 2016, Midwest promoted Finch. The exhibits to the 2014 employment agreement were revised. In 2017 and 2018, Midwest provided Finch with Compensation and Annual Plan letters, revising Finch’s compensation. In 2019, Finch filed this lawsuit in Contra Costa County, alleging violations of the Labor Code for failure to pay his final wages on time and failure to reimburse him for business expenses; violation of Business and Professions Code section 17200; and a cause of action under the Private Attorneys General Act.The court concluded that the 2017 and 2018 Compensation letters modified the 2014 employment agreement. Because these modifications occurred after January 1, 2017, the court concluded they triggered Finch’s Labor Code section 925 right. Section 925 renders a forum selection clause in an employment contract voidable by an employee if the contract containing the clause was “entered into, modified, or extended on or after January 1, 2017.” The court of appeal denied Midwest’s writ petition. Section 925 is triggered by any modification to a contract occurring on or after January 1, 2017. View "Midwest Motor Supply Co. v. Superior Court" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, wastewater collection workers employed by the city to clean its sewers, filed suit alleging that they worked in the transportation industry and the city denied them meal and rest breaks mandated by Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Order No. 9. Wage Order No. 9 obligates the City of Los Angeles to provide meal and rest breaks to persons it employs in the transportation industry.The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's grant of summary judgment for the city. The court held that, for purposes of Industrial Welfare Commission wage orders, a sanitation worker does not become part of the transportation industry simply because the waste collected must be transported to collection sites. Therefore, Wage Order No. 9 does not apply in this case. The court also held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying leave to amend. View "Miles v. City of Los Angeles" on Justia Law

While Michael Tilkey and his girlfriend Jacqueline Mann were at her home in Arizona, the two got into an argument. Tilkey decided to leave. When he stepped out onto the enclosed patio to collect his things, Mann locked the door behind him. Tilkey banged on the door to regain entry, but Mann called police. Police arrested Tilkey and charged him under Arizona law with criminal damage deface and other charges; domestic violence charges were attached to the criminal damage and disorderly conduct charges. Tilkey pled guilty to the disorderly conduct charge only, and the other charges were dropped. After Tilkey completed a domestic nonviolence diversion program, the disorderly conduct charge was dismissed. Before the disorderly conduct charge was dismissed, Allstate Insurance Company (Allstate), for whom Tilkey had worked for over 30 years, terminated his employment based on his arrest and his participation in the diversion program. Allstate informed Tilkey it was discharging him for threatening behavior and/or acts of physical harm or violence to another person. Following the termination, Allstate reported its reason for the termination on a Form U5, filed with Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) and accessible to any firm that hired licensed broker-dealers like Tilkey. Tilkey sued Allstate for wrongful termination in violation of California Labor Code section 432.7 and compelled, self-published defamation. At trial, Allstate presented evidence that it would have terminated his employment based on after-acquired evidence that Tilkey had circulated obscene and inappropriate e-mails using company resources. A jury returned a verdict in Tilkey’s favor on all causes of action. Allstate appealed, contending: (1) it did not violate section 432.7; (2) compelled self-published defamation per se was not a viable tort theory; (3) it did not defame Tilkey because there was not substantial evidence its statement was not substantially true; (4) punitive damages were unavailable in compelled self-publication defamation causes of action; (5) the defamatory statement was not made with malice; and (6) the punitive damages awarded here were unconstitutionally excessive. The Court of Appeal agreed Allstate did not violate section 432.7 when it terminated Tilkey’s employment based on his plea and his participation in an Arizona domestic nonviolence program and reversed that judgment. However, the Court concluded compelled self-published defamation was a viable theory, and substantial evidence supported the verdict that the statement was not substantially true, so the Court affirmed that portion of the judgment. While the Court concluded punitive damages were available in this instance, the punitive damages awarded here were not proportionate to the compensatory damages for defamation. The Court remanded this matter to the trial court with directions to recalculate punitive damages. View "Tilkey v. Allstate Ins. Co." on Justia Law

MTA's failure to count the days an employee is on California Family Rights Act (CFRA) leave when calculating the 60-day clearance period does not violate the CFRA. Plaintiff, a bus operator for MTA, was terminated from his employment after he had eight non-excluded absences. This appeal concerns the discipline provision in a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) between MTA and the union representing all operations employees of MTA. Under a section of that provision (the absenteeism rule), an employee is subject to progressive discipline, up to and including termination, if he or she has a certain number of absences. To avoid discipline, the employee may remove (or clear) an absence from his or her count by not having any absences for 60 consecutive calendar days. However, certain kinds of absences are expressly excluded from the absenteeism rule, such as an absence covered under the federal Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) or the CFRA.The Court of Appeal held that where, as here, an employer's no-fault absenteeism policy provides that an employee may clear absences that otherwise would count for purposes of disciplinary action by working (or being available to work) during a certain clearance period, the employer does not violate the CFRA by extending the absence clearance period by the number of days the employee was on CFRA leave during that period. The court also held that plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact that MTA treats other kinds of unpaid leave differently than CFRA leave. Therefore, the court affirmed the trial court's grant of summary judgment for MTA on plaintiff's claims for retaliation based on his use of CFRA leave, failure to prevent retaliation, and interference with CFRA leave. View "Lares v. Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority" on Justia Law