Wednesday, October 2, 2024
Wentworth v. Regents of the University of California
Employment Law
A public university professor raised a triable issue of material fact about whether the university’s regents violated the Information Practices Act by leaking to the media a letter about student complaints against him and disclosing information about his disability accommodation at a faculty and student meeting.
Wentworth v. Regents of the University of California - filed Sept. 30, 2024, First District, Div. Four
Cite as 2024 S.O.S. 3388
Full text click here >http://sos.metnews.com/sos.cgi?1024//A168296
Doe v. Second Street Corporation
Employment Law
Under the Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act, a plaintiff’s sexual harassment claims alleging continuing violations both before and after the EFAA’s effective date are exempt from mandatory arbitration; plaintiff’s other causes of action are also exempt from mandatory arbitration under the EFAA because they are part of the same case.
Doe v. Second Street Corporation - filed Sept. 30, 2024, Second District, Div. Three
Cite as 2024 S.O.S. 3381
Full text click here >http://sos.metnews.com/sos.cgi?1024//B330281.
Mooney v. Fife; filed Sept. 30, 2024
Employment Law
A False Claims Act retaliation claim requires proof of three elements: protected conduct; notice; and causation. In analyzing a retaliation claim, a court must use the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework, rather than the Mt. Healthy framework commonly applied to First Amendment retaliation claims. The “investigating” requirement established by U.S. ex rel. Hopper v. Anton does not apply when the employee alleges that he was discharged because of efforts to stop violations of the False Claims Act.
Mooney v. Fife; filed Sept. 30, 2024 http://sos.metnews.com/sos.cgi?1024//22-16328
Tuesday, October 1, 2024
Wentworth v. Regents of the University of California
Trial court erred in granting summary adjudication to U.C. Berkeley assistant professor's invasion of privacy claim. https://www.dailyjournal.com/users/sign_in
Friday, September 27, 2024
Miller v. Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation - filed Sept. 6, 2024, publication ordered Sept. 23, 2024, Fourth District, Div. Two
An employer was not prohibited from taking adverse employment actions against plaintiff where employer presented evidence plaintiff could not perform the essential duties of her position, plaintiff did not present any evidence to dispute the essential duties of a her position nor did she present any evidence to suggest that her disability-related restrictions would permit her to perform the essential duties of her position. Even if the employer failed to engage in the interactive process and failed to offer a reasonable accommodation, this would not compel the conclusion that it is liable for disability discrimination. A disability retirement in the Public Employees Retirement System is not a reasonable accommodation within the meaning of Government Code §12940(m)(1).
Miller v. Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation - filed Sept. 6, 2024, publication ordered Sept. 23, 2024, Fourth District, Div. Two
Cite as 2024 S.O.S. 3323
Full text click here >http://sos.metnews.com/sos.cgi?0924//E081230.
Friday, September 13, 2024
Silloway v. City & County of San Francisco - filed Sept. 11, 2024
Employment Law
To determine whether employees are compensated on a salary basis, courts must look beyond conclusory language in contracts and similar documents, such as a city’s salary ordinance, to analyze how employees are actually paid; the proper focus for the salary basis test is whether an employee receives a predetermined amount of compensation on a weekly or less frequent basis, irrespective of any promises made in an employment contract.
Silloway v. City & County of San Francisco - filed Sept. 11, 2024
Cite as 2024 S.O.S. 22-16079
Full text click here >http://sos.metnews.com/sos.cgi?0924//22-16079.
Tuesday, September 10, 2024
Adams v. County of Sacramento - filed Sept. 9, 2024
Employment Law
The sending of private text messages to two friends during a friendly, casual text message conversation, forwarding offensive racist spam images, and complaining about the images does not constitute a matter of legitimate public concern within the meaning of Pickering v. Board of Education.
Adams v. County of Sacramento - filed Sept. 9, 2024
Cite as 2024 S.O.S. 23-15970
Full text click here >http://sos.metnews.com/sos.cgi?0924//23-15970
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)