Justia California Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

In this case, the petitioners sought to disqualify a trial court judge based on alleged bias and prejudice. The key facts revolve around a wage-and-hour class action lawsuit initiated by the real parties in interest against the petitioners, their employer. During the litigation, the trial judge made comments suggesting the petitioners were attempting to evade liability through corporate restructuring. These comments were cited by the petitioners as evidence of bias.The Fresno County Superior Court judge struck the petitioners' statement of disqualification as untimely. The petitioners then sought writ review in the Court of Appeal, which held that the nonwaiver provision of section 170.3(b)(2) precluded the application of the timeliness requirement in section 170.3(c)(1) when a party alleges judicial bias or prejudice. The Court of Appeal reasoned that the nonwaiver provision should be interpreted to prohibit all forms of waiver, including implied waiver due to untimeliness.The Supreme Court of California reviewed the case and disagreed with the Court of Appeal's interpretation. The Supreme Court held that the nonwaiver provision of section 170.3(b)(2) applies only to judicial self-disqualification and does not affect the timeliness requirement for party-initiated disqualification attempts under section 170.3(c)(1). The Court emphasized that the statutory text, structure, legislative history, and case law support this interpretation. Consequently, the Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeal's judgment and remanded the case for the lower court to determine whether the petitioners' statement of disqualification was filed in a timely manner. View "North Am. Title Co. v. Superior Court" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, employees of a hospital operated by Alameda Health System (AHS), alleged that AHS violated California labor laws by denying meal and rest breaks, failing to keep accurate payroll records, and not paying full wages. They sought civil penalties under the Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (PAGA).The Alameda County Superior Court sustained AHS’s demurrer without leave to amend, concluding that AHS, as a public entity, was not subject to the Labor Code provisions cited by plaintiffs. The court also dismissed the PAGA claim, reasoning that public entities are not “persons” subject to PAGA penalties.The California Court of Appeal reversed in part, holding that AHS was not exempt from the meal and rest break requirements or the wage payment statutes. It distinguished AHS from state agencies, noting that the enabling statute indicated AHS was not an agency, division, or department of the county. However, the court agreed that AHS was exempt from the wage statement requirements and that it was not a “person” subject to default PAGA penalties.The California Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeal’s judgment. It held that the Legislature intended to exempt public employers, including hospital authorities like AHS, from the Labor Code provisions governing meal and rest breaks and related wage payment statutes. The Court also concluded that public entities are not subject to PAGA penalties for the violations alleged. The case was remanded to the trial court to reinstate its ruling on the demurrer and conduct any further proceedings as appropriate. View "Stone v. Alameda Health System" on Justia Law

The case involves three Lyft drivers, Tina Turrieta, Brandon Olson, and Million Seifu, who each filed separate lawsuits under the California Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (PAGA) against Lyft, Inc. for alleged labor violations. Turrieta settled her case with Lyft, but before the settlement was approved, Olson and Seifu sought to intervene and object to the settlement, arguing it was unfair and that they had overlapping claims. The trial court denied their motions to intervene, approved the settlement, and later denied their motions to vacate the judgment.Olson and Seifu appealed the trial court's decisions. The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's rulings, holding that Olson and Seifu lacked standing to intervene or to challenge the settlement because they were not aggrieved by the judgment. The appellate court reasoned that PAGA actions are representative actions on behalf of the state, and thus, Olson and Seifu did not have a personal interest in the settlement of Turrieta’s PAGA claim.The California Supreme Court reviewed the case and agreed with the Court of Appeal. The Supreme Court held that PAGA does not authorize one aggrieved employee to intervene in another employee’s PAGA action asserting overlapping claims. The Court reasoned that allowing such intervention would be inconsistent with the statutory scheme of PAGA, which provides for oversight of settlements by the Labor and Workforce Development Agency (LWDA) and the courts, but does not mention intervention by other PAGA plaintiffs. The Court emphasized that the statutory language and legislative history indicate that the Legislature intended for the LWDA and the courts to ensure the fairness of PAGA settlements, not other PAGA plaintiffs.The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Court of Appeal, concluding that Olson and Seifu did not have the right to intervene, object to, or move to vacate the judgment in Turrieta’s PAGA action. View "Turrieta v. Lyft, Inc." on Justia Law

In May 2019, the City of Sunnyvale Department of Public Safety imposed a 44-hour suspension on Officer David Meinhardt, which was upheld by the City of Sunnyvale Personnel Board. Meinhardt challenged the suspension by filing a petition for writ of administrative mandate in the Santa Clara County Superior Court. On August 6, 2020, the court issued an order denying the petition. Subsequently, on September 25, 2020, a formal judgment was entered, and Meinhardt filed a notice of appeal on October 15, 2020.The Fourth Appellate District, Division One, dismissed the appeal as untimely, concluding that the August 6 order was the final judgment from which Meinhardt should have appealed. The court reasoned that the order denied the petition in its entirety and did not contemplate further action, thus starting the 60-day period for filing an appeal.The Supreme Court of California reviewed the case to resolve the uncertainty about when the time to appeal starts in writ of administrative mandate proceedings. The court held that the time to appeal begins with the entry of a "judgment" or the service of notice of entry of "judgment," rather than with the filing of an "order" or other ruling. This decision was based on the plain language of relevant statutes and rules, which contemplate the entry of a "judgment," and the policy of providing clear jurisdictional deadlines to avoid inadvertent forfeiture of the right to appeal. The court reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeal, concluding that Meinhardt's notice of appeal was timely filed within 60 days of the entry of the September 25 judgment. View "Meinhardt v. City of Sunnyvale" on Justia Law

Twanda Bailey, an African-American employee, sued the San Francisco District Attorney’s Office, former District Attorney George Gascon, and the City and County of San Francisco for racial harassment and retaliation under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA). Bailey alleged that a coworker called her the N-word, and after reporting the incident, the human resources manager obstructed her complaint, engaged in intimidating conduct, and threatened her.The San Francisco City and County Superior Court granted summary judgment for the City, finding that Bailey failed to make a prima facie case for her FEHA claims. The trial court concluded that a single racial slur by a coworker did not constitute severe or pervasive harassment and that Bailey did not suffer an adverse employment action. The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s decision.The Supreme Court of California reviewed the case and held that an isolated act of harassment, such as the use of an unambiguous racial epithet like the N-word, can be actionable if it is sufficiently severe under the totality of the circumstances. The Court emphasized that the severity of harassment should be judged from the perspective of a reasonable person in the plaintiff’s position. The Court also held that a course of conduct that effectively withdraws an employee’s means of reporting and addressing racial harassment can constitute an adverse employment action. The Court found that there were triable issues of fact regarding both Bailey’s harassment and retaliation claims and reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeal, remanding the case for further proceedings. View "Bailey v. San Francisco District Attorney's Office" on Justia Law

Peter Quach filed a lawsuit against California Commerce Club (Commerce Club) after being terminated from his job at the casino where he had worked for nearly 30 years. Quach's complaint included claims of wrongful termination, age discrimination, retaliation, and harassment, and he demanded a jury trial. Commerce Club had previously provided Quach with a signed arbitration agreement from 2015, which mandated binding arbitration for employment-related disputes. Instead of moving to compel arbitration, Commerce Club answered the complaint and engaged in extensive discovery, including propounding interrogatories and taking Quach’s deposition.The Los Angeles County Superior Court denied Commerce Club’s motion to compel arbitration, finding that Commerce Club had waived its right to arbitrate by engaging in litigation for 13 months. The court noted that Commerce Club had actively participated in discovery and requested a jury trial, actions inconsistent with an intent to arbitrate. Commerce Club appealed, and the Second Appellate District, Division One, reversed the trial court’s decision, holding that Quach had not shown sufficient prejudice from Commerce Club’s delay in seeking arbitration.The Supreme Court of California reviewed the case and abrogated the state’s arbitration-specific prejudice requirement, aligning with the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Morgan v. Sundance, Inc. The court held that under California law, as under federal law, courts should apply the same principles to determine waiver of the right to compel arbitration as they do for other contracts. The court concluded that Commerce Club had waived its right to compel arbitration by engaging in litigation conduct inconsistent with an intent to arbitrate. The judgment of the Court of Appeal was reversed, and the case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with this decision. View "Quach v. Cal. Commerce Club, Inc." on Justia Law

The case involves Business and Professions Code section 7451, enacted through Proposition 22, which classifies app-based drivers for companies like Uber, Lyft, and DoorDash as independent contractors rather than employees, provided certain conditions are met. This classification exempts these drivers from California workers’ compensation laws, which typically apply to employees. Plaintiffs, including several individuals and unions, argue that section 7451 conflicts with article XIV, section 4 of the California Constitution, which grants the Legislature plenary power to create and enforce a complete system of workers’ compensation.The Alameda County Superior Court found Proposition 22 unconstitutional, reasoning that it improperly limited the Legislature’s power to govern workers’ compensation, a power deemed "unlimited" by the state Constitution. The court held that the people must amend the Constitution through an initiative constitutional amendment, not an initiative statute, to impose such limitations. Consequently, the court invalidated Proposition 22 in its entirety.The California Court of Appeal reversed the lower court’s decision, holding that article XIV, section 4 does not preclude the electorate from using its initiative power to legislate on workers’ compensation matters. The court reasoned that the Legislature’s power under article XIV, section 4 is not exclusive and that Proposition 22 does not conflict with this constitutional provision. The court did, however, affirm the invalidation of certain severable provisions of Proposition 22 not at issue in this appeal.The California Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeal’s judgment, agreeing that section 7451 does not conflict with article XIV, section 4. The court held that the Legislature’s plenary power under article XIV, section 4 is not exclusive and does not preclude the electorate from enacting legislation through the initiative process. The court did not address whether other provisions of Proposition 22 improperly constrain the Legislature’s authority, as those issues were not presented in this case. View "Castellanos v. State of California" on Justia Law

A former employee sued her employer, Charter Communications, Inc., alleging discrimination, harassment, and retaliation under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), as well as wrongful discharge. Charter moved to compel arbitration based on an agreement the employee had signed during the onboarding process. The employee opposed, arguing the arbitration agreement was procedurally and substantively unconscionable.The Los Angeles County Superior Court found the agreement to be a contract of adhesion and substantively unconscionable due to provisions that shortened the time for filing claims, allowed Charter to recover attorney fees contrary to FEHA, and imposed an interim fee award for compelling arbitration. The court refused to enforce the agreement, finding it permeated with unconscionability. The Second Appellate District, Division Four, affirmed, identifying additional unconscionable provisions and disagreeing with another appellate decision regarding interim fee awards.The Supreme Court of California reviewed the case and agreed that certain provisions of the arbitration agreement were substantively unconscionable, including the lack of mutuality in covered and excluded claims, the shortened limitations period for filing claims, and the potential for an unlawful award of attorney fees. The court clarified that the discovery limitations were not unconscionable, as the arbitrator had the authority to order additional discovery if necessary.The Supreme Court held that the agreement's unconscionable provisions could potentially be severed, and the matter was remanded for further consideration of whether the unconscionable provisions could be severed to enforce the remainder of the agreement. The court also concluded that the Court of Appeal’s decision did not violate the Federal Arbitration Act. View "Ramirez v. Charter Communications, Inc." on Justia Law

The case involves Gustavo Naranjo and other plaintiffs who worked as guards for Spectrum Security Services, Inc. The plaintiffs alleged that Spectrum violated state regulations governing meal breaks by not providing legally compliant meal breaks and failing to pay an additional hour of pay, known as "premium pay," for each day on which this occurred. The plaintiffs also claimed that Spectrum violated Labor Code sections 201, 202, 203, and 226 by not timely paying owed meal break premiums as wages to employees once they were discharged or resigned, and by not reporting the premium pay it owed as wages on employees’ wage statements.The case has been through multiple stages of litigation. Initially, the trial court granted summary judgment for Spectrum, but this was reversed by the Court of Appeal. On remand, the trial court certified a class for the meal break and related timely payment and wage statement claims and held a trial in three phases. The trial court found that Spectrum had violated sections 203 and 226 by failing to pay and report the missed-break premium pay as wages. However, it issued a split decision on the question of penalties. It ruled in Spectrum’s favor regarding section 203 penalties, finding that Spectrum’s defenses were presented in good faith and were not unreasonable or unsupported by the evidence. But it ruled against Spectrum regarding section 226 penalties, finding that Spectrum was liable for penalties because its failure to report premium pay for missed meal breaks in employees’ wage statements was “knowing and intentional and not inadvertent.”Both sides appealed the trial court’s ruling. The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s holding that Spectrum had violated meal break laws between June 2004 and September 2007. But it reversed the trial court’s holding that Spectrum had violated section 203 and section 226 by failing to timely pay and report the meal break premium pay owed as “wages,” reasoning that the premium pay was instead in the nature of a penalty rather than compensation for work performed.The Supreme Court of California held that if an employer reasonably and in good faith believed it was providing a complete and accurate wage statement in compliance with the requirements of section 226, then it has not knowingly and intentionally failed to comply with the wage statement law. The court affirmed the judgment of the Court of Appeal, which reached the same conclusion. View "Naranjo v. Spectrum Security Services, Inc." on Justia Law

A group of non-convicted individuals detained at the Santa Rita Jail in Alameda County, California, filed a lawsuit against the county and a private contractor, Aramark Correctional Services, LLC. The detainees were working in the jail's kitchen, preparing meals for the jail population and staff under an agreement between the county and Aramark. They were not paid for their labor. The detainees sued for failure to pay minimum wage and overtime.The case was initially heard in a federal district court, which granted in part and denied in part the defendants' motions to dismiss. The court reasoned that while the Penal Code addresses employment and wages of state prisoners, it does not address such matters for pretrial detainees confined in county jails. The court also agreed with the County that government entities are exempt from state overtime laws and therefore granted the County's motion to dismiss the claim for overtime wages. The district court certified for interlocutory appeal the legal question of pretrial detainees’ entitlement to minimum and overtime wages.The Supreme Court of California was asked by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit to decide whether non-convicted incarcerated individuals working in a county jail for a private company have a claim for minimum wage and overtime under California law. The Supreme Court of California concluded that non-convicted incarcerated individuals performing services in county jails for a for-profit company do not have a claim for minimum wages and overtime under Section 1194 of the California Labor Code, even in the absence of a local ordinance prescribing or prohibiting the payment of wages for these individuals. View "Ruelas v. County of Alameda" on Justia Law