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

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

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.

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.

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