California Supreme Court Civil Issues Pending: Employment - Other
[UPDATED THROUGH MAY 3, 2012]
Is Arbitration Clause in Employment Application Valid? Is an arbitration clause in an employment application that provides “I agree to submit to binding arbitration all disputes and claims arising out of the submission of this application” unenforceable as substantively unconscionable for lack of mutuality, or does the language create a mutual agreement to arbitrate all such disputes? (See Roman v. Superior Court (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 1462.) Wisdom v. Accentcare, Inc., S200128. (opinion below C065744, formerly 202 Cal.App.4th 591), review granted 3/28/12.
Does Use of False Documents to Obtain Employment Bar Claims under the Fair Employment and Housing Act? Did the trial court err in dismissing plaintiff’s claims under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (Gov. Code, § 12900 et seq.) on grounds of after-acquired evidence and unclean hands, based on plaintiff’s use of false documentation to obtain employment in the first instance? Did Senate Bill No. 1818 (2001–2002 Reg. Session) preclude application of those doctrines in this case? (See Civ. Code, § 3339; Gov. Code, § 7285; Health & Saf. Code, § 24000; Lab. Code, § 1171.5.) Salas v. Sierra Chemical Co., S196568 (opinion below C064627, formerly 198 Cal.App.4th 29), petition granted 11/16/11.
Are Claims of State Labor and Insurance Laws Violations Preempted by the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act? Is an action under the Unfair Competition Law (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 17200 et seq.) that is based on a trucking company’s alleged violation of state labor and insurance laws “related to the price, route, or service” of the company and, therefore, preempted by the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act of 1994 (49 U.S.C. § 14501)? People ex re. Harris v. Pac Anchor Transportation, Inc., S194388 (opinion below B220966, formerly 195 Cal.App.4th 765), review granted 8/10/11.
Can City’s Salary-Setting and Budget-Making Powers Be Subject to Arbitration?
Could grievances challenging the imposition of furloughs on employees covered by a ratified Memorandum of Understanding be referred to arbitration in accordance with the agreement, as ordered by the trial court, or was arbitration barred as an improper delegation of the city’s discretionary salary-setting and budget-making powers, as held by the Court of Appeal? City of Los Angeles v. Superior Court, S192828 (opinion below B228732, formerly 193 Cal.App.4th 1159), review granted 7/13/11.
Does Labor Code § 4558 Allow a Loss on Consortium Claim by the Spouse of the Injured Worker? Can the spouse of an injured worker claim damages for loss of consortium in an action at law brought by the injured worker under Labor Code § 4558 for damages allegedly caused by an employer’s knowing removal of or failure to install a safety guard on a power press? LeFiell Manufacturing Co. v. Superior Court, S192759 (opinion below B226240, formerly 193 Cal.App.4th 1413, an appeal from the L.A. Superior Court), review granted 6/22/11. Update 5/3/12: Oral argument scheduled for 6/5/12.
Resolving the Conflict Between the Privacy of Non-Union Public Employees and the Union Obligation to Represent Entire Bargaining Unit. (1) Under the state Constitution (Cal. Const., art. I, § 1), do the interests of non-union-member public employees in the privacy of their personal contact information outweigh the interests of the union representing their bargaining unit in obtaining that information in furtherance of its duties as a matter of labor law to provide fair and equal representation of union-member and non-union-member employees within the bargaining unit? (2) Did the Court of Appeal err in remanding to the trial court with directions to apply a specific notice procedure to protect such employees’ privacy rights instead of permitting the parties to determine the proper procedure for doing so? County of Los Angeles v. Los Angeles County Employee Relations Comm., S191944 (opinion below, B217668, formerly 192 Cal.App.4th 1409), review granted 6/15/11.
Can the State Require a Private Property Owner to Provide Access to Unwanted Protesters?
(1) Did the Court of Appeal err in concluding that the parking area and walkway in front of the entrance to plaintiff’s retail store, which is part of a larger shopping center, do not constitute a public forum under Robins v. Pruneyard Shopping Center and its progeny? (2) Do the Moscone Act (CCP § 527.3) and Labor Code §1138.1, which limit the availability of injunctive relief in labor disputes, violate the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution because they afford preferential treatment to speech concerning labor disputes over speech about other issues?Ralphs Grocery v. United Food & Commercial Workers Union, S185544 (opinion below, C060413, formerly 186 Cal.App.4th 1078), review granted 9/29/10. The petition for review is here. Update 4/13/11: Review granted in Ralphs Grocery Co. v. United Food & Commercial Workers Union Local 8, S191251 (opinion below F058716, formerly 192 Cal.App.4th 200), with briefing deferred pending the decision in Ralphs Grocery v. United Food & Commercial Workers Union.
Is An Employer Entitled To A Jury Instruction On Mixed Motives For Firing An At-Will Employee? Does the “mixed-motive” defense apply to employment discrimination claims under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (Gov. Code, § 12900 et seq.)? Harris v. City of Santa Monica, S181004 (opinion below B199571, formerly 181 Cal.App.4th 1094), review granted 4/22/10. The petition for review is here.
