Labor & Employment Law Blog

In the recent case of Huerta v. Kava Holdings, Inc., 2018 WL 5999639 (Cal. Ct. App. Nov. 14, 2018), the California Court of Appeal held that a prevailing employer that made a section 998 settlement offer to the plaintiff in an action brought under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”) was not entitled to costs and expert witness fees incurred after the plaintiff’s rejection of the offer.

The typical workplace bulletin board is densely packed with legally required posters and employee notifications. As laws change, the posters must be updated to reflect the changes. For example, the minimum wage in California increased to $10 an hour on January 1, 2016; the required poster specifying the minimum wage should reflect that most recent increase.

On February 17, 2016, the Department of Fair Employment and Housing (“DFEH”) issued first-of-its-kind guidance on transgender rights in the workplace.

In Patterson v. Domino’s Pizza, LLC., the California Supreme Court addressed the issue of whether a franchisor, such as Domino’s Pizza, LLC., can be held vicariously liable for claims of alleged sexual harassment by an employee of a franchisee, such as an individually owned Domino’s Pizza store.  The court framed the issue as follows:  “Does a franchisor stand in an employment or agency relationship with the franchisee and its employees for purposes of holding it vicariously liable for workplace injuries allegedly inflicted by one employee of a franchisee while supervising another employee of the franchisee?”  The court held a franchisor is not vicariously liable for claims of alleged workplace torts by employees of a franchisee unless. . . .