Justia California Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

UFW was certified as the bargaining representative for Gerawan employees in 1992, but UFW did not contact Gerawan until 2012. After a few months, the Board ordered the parties to a statutory Mandatory Mediation and Conciliation (MMC) process pursuant to Labor Code section 1164 et seq., in order to reach terms of a collective bargaining agreement. Following the Board's final order adopting the mediator's report, Gerawan petitioned this court for review, challenging the validity of the order and the MMC process on both statutory and constitutional grounds. The court agreed with Gerawan’s statutory argument that it should have been given an opportunity to prove abandonment to the Board once UFW requested the MMC process. More fundamentally, the court agreed with Gerawan’s constitutional arguments that the MMC statute violates equal protection principles and constitutes an improper delegation of legislative authority. Accordingly, the court set aside the Board's order. View "Gerawan Farming v. Agricultural Labor Rel. Bd." on Justia Law

Petitioners, the widow and children of a deceased firefighter, sought a writ of review after the Board denied reconsideration of the decision of the workers' compensation judge finding that the cancer presumption of Labor Code section 3212.1 did not apply to petitioners' claim. At issue was whether an amendment to the Labor Code, enacted by Senate Bill 1271 on February 19, 2008 and effective on January 1, 2009, which would extend the cancer presumption to firefighters like the deceased, is applicable to the claim for workers’ compensation benefits filed on November 3, 2009. The court held that the amendment of Labor Code section 3212.1 effected a procedural change, and accordingly that the presumption is properly applied in the post-enactment adjudication of this claim. Therefore, the court annuled the decision of the appeals board and remanded the case for further proceedings View "Lozano v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs appeal a judgment of dismissal following an order sustaining without leave to amend a demurrer by defendants. At issue is whether Labor Code section 3701.9 violates equal protection because it treats temporary services employers (TSE’s) and leasing employers (LE’s) differently from other employers, who are permitted to self-insure. The court concluded that a rational basis exists for treating TSE’s and LE’s differently from other employers with respect to self-insurance. In this case, the potential for a rapid increase in the number of employees, coupled with the delay in adjusting the amount of the self-insurance security deposit, is a rational basis for excluding TSE’s and LE’s from the workers’ compensation self insurance program. View "Kimco Staffing Services v. St. of CA" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against defendant and his business seeking unpaid overtime wages. On appeal, defendant challenged an order denying his motion to set aside the default judgment. The court concluded that defendant's contention related to improper and fraudulent service of the summons and complaint lacked merit. The court concluded, however, that the default judgment is void because it exceeded the amount of damages stated in the complaint. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded with directions. View "Rodriguez v. Cho" on Justia Law

Robles worked collecting food grease from restaurants until his 2010 termination. Robles’s supervisor cited Robles’s attempt to buy shoes at the Red Wing store, where employees can use an annual $150 shoe allowance. Robles asked the clerk to measure his friend’s foot because he “intended to give it to my friend.” Robles reasoned that he had shoes and his friend needed them. The clerk told Robles “that was not possible.” Robles believes there was a misunderstanding of policy but no misconduct. Robles sought unemployment benefits. The Employment Development Department’s record contained no employer information about the incident. The EDD’notice stated that Robles’s claim was denied because he “broke a reasonable employer rule.” Robles appealed, stating his employer did not cite any specific rule, that he was not aware of any such rule, and that he did not obtain an improper benefit or cause his employer any harm. Despite being twice ordered to do by the trial court, EED continued to refuse to award benefits. The court of appeal affirmed the court’s most recent response to Robles’s motion to enforce writ of administrative mandate,ordering EDD “to pay withheld federal extension benefits, costs and interest in the amount of $45,560.39, within 30 days.” View "Robles v. Emp't Dev. Dept." on Justia Law

Cypress sued, alleging that Maxim, had misappropriated a trade secret, or was in the process of doing so, by seeking to hire away specialists in touchscreen technology, a field in which Cypress and Maxim compete. Maxim responded that it was entitled to solicit prospective employment candidates in Cypress’s workforce and that there was no evidence it had acquired, or was seeking to acquire, any trade secret. After failing to secure temporary injunctive relief, and failing to obtain an order placing under seal evidence derived by Maxim from public sources, Cypress dismissed the action. The trial court awarded Maxim attorney fees under Civil Code 3426.4, which authorizes such an award to the prevailing party where a claim for misappropriation of trade secrets is found to have been made in bad faith. The court of appeal affirmed, stating that the finding of bad faith was amply supported by evidence that defendants did no more, and Cypress accused them of no more, than attempting to recruit the employees of a competitor. Cypress dismissed the suit to avoid an adverse determination on the merits. View "Cypress Semiconductor Corp. v. Maxim Integrated Prods., Inc." on Justia Law

Following his last day of work as an employee of San Bernardino County, Frank Flethez underwent surgery for a work-related spinal injury he suffered in 1998. In 2008, he filed an application with the San Bernardino County Employees Retirement Association (SBCERA) for work-related disability retirements benefits. SBCERA granted his request for disability benefits, beginning as of 2008, but did not grant him retroactive benefits for the period before the date of his application. Flethez filed a petition for writ of mandamus seeking retroactive disability retirement benefits. The trial court issued a judgment granting his petition and awarding him Civil Code section 3287, subdivision (a),1 (section 3287(a)) prejudgment interest on the retroactive benefits to which the judgment provided he was entitled. On appeal, SBCERA argued the trial court erred by awarding Flethez section 3287(a) prejudgment interest on his retroactive benefits because SBCERA could not have granted those benefits until he filed an application for disability retirement and submitted evidence showing his entitlement to those benefits in 2008. Based on its interpretation of section 3287(a) and consideration of relevant case law and the facts in this case, the Court of Appeal concluded the trial court erred by awarding Flethez prejudgment interest on his retroactive disability benefits before payments of those benefits were due and before his right to recover those payments became vested under section 3287(a). View "Flethez v. San Bernardino Co. Employees Retirement Assn." on Justia Law

Defendant Superior Court of Nevada County (SCNC) appealed a jury verdict in favor of plaintiff and former employee Emily Gallup. Gallup brought this action alleging, in part, that SCNC retaliated against her in violation of Labor Code section 1102.5, subdivision (b) for engaging in protected activity when she complained to her supervisor, other court management, and the Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) that the Family Court Services Department (FCS) was not providing services in compliance with the law, rules, regulations, and policies. SCNC demurred to this cause of action on the ground Gallup had failed to exhaust her administrative remedies under section 98.7. The trial court overruled the demurrer. The case was tried before the jury on the section 1102.5, subdivision (b) cause of action alone, as all Gallup’s other causes of action were disposed of by demurrer or summary judgment. The jury found in Gallup’s favor, awarding her past economic loss in the amount of $168,206, future economic loss in the amount of $105,000, and past noneconomic loss in the amount of $40,000, for a total of $313,206. SCNC appealed, raising as the only issue the trial court order overruling the demurrer. Upon review, the Court of Appeal concluded that "Campbell v. Regents of University of California," (35 Cal.4th 311 (2005)), and not the precedent relied upon by SCNC, was the controlling authority, and reversed for consideration under the correct caselaw standard. View "Gallup v. Super. Ct." on Justia Law

Lanquist and Temple served as midshipmen at the Academy for four years before they became commissioned naval officers. Both men later became employees of Ventura County. They are members of VCERA, which permits employees to purchase retirement service credit for time spent in military service. It excludes time spent as a midshipman at the United States Naval Academy. VCERA denied their requests to purchase retirement service credit for midshipmen service at the Academy. At a hearing before the VCERA retirement board, they presented evidence that as midshipmen at the Academy they were compensated as active duty servicemen and experienced hardships and dangers on surface cruises with active naval vessels similar to those experienced by commissioned officers. The trial court upheld the denial, holding that VCERA's policy of denying retirement service credit for service at the Academy is "appropriate" in view of state and federal authorities interpreting the terms "public service," and "active duty." The court of appeal reversed. "Military service" includes service as a midshipman, Gov. Code, 31450. View "Lanquist v. Ventura Cnty. Emps.' Ret. Ass'n" on Justia Law

Serafin sued her former employer Balco, alleging wrongful termination, harassment, and defamation. The trial court granted Balco’s motion to stay the litigation until the completion of binding arbitration based upon an arbitration agreement Serafin signed when she was hired. The arbitrator ultimately found in Balco’s favor on all issues, and the trial court confirmed the award, entering judgment in Balco’s favor. The court of appeal affirmed, rejecting arguments that Serafin never entered into a binding agreement to arbitrate her employment-related claims and that the arbitration agreement was unenforceable because it was procedurally and substantively unconscionable. The court found the degree of procedural unconscionability minimal, and that, because a substantively unconscionable attorney fees provision was severed by the trial court before arbitration began, no substantive unconscionability was shown View "Serafin v. Balco Props. Ltd., LLC" on Justia Law