West v. City of Caldwell

A homeowner’s lack of consent to the entry of her house was not clearly established under circumstances where the officer threatened to arrest the homeowner for concealing a wanted felon’s whereabouts, but the officer walked away and then returned and again asked for access to the house, and the homeowner nodded assent and handed over her key. As of August 2014, it was not clearly established that officers who thought they had permission to enter a home to apprehend a dangerous, potentially armed, and suicidal felon would exceed the scope of a homeowner’s consent to entry by employing tear gas canisters when they entered the home.

West v. City of Caldwell - filed July 25, 2019 

Cite as 2019 S.O.S. 18-35300 

For more information, go to: 

http://www.beverlyhillsemploymentlaw.com/

Newirth v. Aegis Senior Communities, LLC

Under federal law, a party seeking to prove that the right to compel arbitration has been waived must carry the burden of demonstrating knowledge of an existing right to compel arbitration; intentional acts inconsistent with that existing right; and prejudice to the person opposing arbitration from such inconsistent acts.

Newirth v. Aegis Senior Communities, LLC - filed July 24, 2019 

Cite as 2019 S.O.S. 17-17227 

For more information, go to: 

http://www.beverlyhillsemploymentlaw.com/

Two male LAPD officers retaliated against for supporting female officer. $8.6M. Los Angeles County.

LAPD male officers who support female's sexual harassment complaints are themselves subjected to retaliation.

For more information, go to: 

http://www.beverlyhillsemploymentlaw.com/

Vazquez v. Jan-Pro Franchising Int’l

Defendant-Appellee’s Petition for Panel Rehearing (Dkt. 93) is GRANTED. The opinion in the above-captioned matter filed on May 2, 2019, and published at 923 F.3d 575, is WITHDRAWN.

A revised disposition and an order certifying to the California Supreme Court the question of whether Dynamex Ops. W. Inc. v. Superior Court, 416 P.3d 1 (Cal. 2018), applies retroactively will be filed in due course.

For more information, go to:

http://www.beverlyhillsemploymentlaw.com/ 

Wilson v. Cable News Network, Inc.

The anti-SLAPP statute can be used to screen claims alleging discriminatory or retaliatory employment actions; in such cases, the plaintiff’s allegations about the defendant’s invidious motives will not shield the claim from the same preliminary screening for minimal merit that would apply to any other claim arising from protected activity. The anti-SLAPP statute cannot apply to a defamation claim based on privately communicated remarks that were not made in connection with any issue of public significance.

Wilson v. Cable News Network, Inc. - filed July 22, 2019 

Cite as 2019 S.O.S. 3475 

For more information, go to:
http://www.beverlyhillsemploymentlaw.com/

Brown v. City of Sacramento

Plaintiff Wendell Brown sued his employer, the City of Sacramento (City), for racial discrimination and retaliation in violation of the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA).  (Gov. Code, § 12900 et seq.)  A jury returned a verdict in Brown’s favor.  The City moved for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and a new trial.  The trial court granted the motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict in part, finding that Brown failed to exhaust administrative remedies with respect to some of the acts found to be retaliatory.  The trial court denied the motion with respect to other acts and effectively denied the motion for a new trial.   

The City appeals from the order partially denying the motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, arguing the remaining retaliation and discrimination claims are time-barred and barred for failure to exhaust administrative remedies.  The City also appeals from the order partially denying the motion for a new trial, arguing that juror misconduct deprived the City of a fair trial, and the trial court prejudicially erred in admitting evidence of the purportedly unexhausted and time-barred claims.  Finding no error, we affirm.

For more information, go to: 

http://www.beverlyhillsemploymentlaw.com/

Ixchel Pharma v. Biogen

The panel certified to the California Supreme Court the following questions:

Does section 16600 of the California Business and Professions Code void a contract by which a business is restrained from engaging in a lawful trade or business with another business?

Is a plaintiff required to plead an independently wrongful act in order to state a claim for intentional interference with a contract that can be terminated by a party at any time, or does that requirement apply only to at-will employment contracts?

For more information, go to: 

http://www.beverlyhillsemploymentlaw.com/