California employment case index

Six BART employees who objected on religious grounds to the agency's COVID-19 vaccine mandate were told they could not be accommodated, lost their jobs, tried the case, and won $7,824,580. The Ninth Circuit affirmed, and in doing so gave the employer's undue-hardship defence a shape it had not previously had in a tried case: it is not enough to prove that vaccination was the most effective available measure, because an employer must show the alternatives were "not only less safe, but less safe by a 'substantial,' 'excessive,' or 'unjustifiable' margin." Reliance on public-health guidance is permissible but not dispositive — and here the guidance BART said it relied on was never put in the record, leaving the agency with two retained experts the jury was free to discount. The panel read its own recent vaccine-mandate decisions, Petersen v. Snohomish Regional Fire & Rescue and Williams v. Legacy Health, as resting on their records rather than on the mandate itself: a transit agency staffing a utility worker, a ticket clerk behind bullet-proof glass and a technician who worked ninety percent alone is not a fire department or a hospital. Most consequentially for practitioners, the court held that undue hardship is a fact-specific inquiry ordinarily reserved to the jury, resolvable as a matter of law only where the burden is so obvious that reasonable minds could not differ. Front pay to one plaintiff who had elected it below was not plain error. The conditional cross-appeal on free exercise was mooted and not reached — though the author of the opinion wrote separately, at length, to say the district court's analysis of it was wrong.

A former SpaceX employee who lived and worked in Redmond, Washington filed a FEHA complaint in California, and SpaceX refused to answer the Civil Rights Department's investigatory subpoena on the ground that FEHA stops at the state line. The Second District affirmed the order compelling compliance, and in the published portion of its opinion it did two things that matter to every multistate employer and every remote worker. It separated the question of what California connections trigger FEHA's investigatory provisions from the question of what connections trigger its substantive ones, observing that the potential for conflict with other sovereigns is far less when the Department investigates than when it enjoins, so that it is at least conceivable that fewer connections are required to open an investigation than to impose liability. And it refused to read Kearney, or the Tidewater-Sullivan-Ward-Oman wage-and-hour line, as laying down any categorical rule that California's employment laws never protect a worker outside the state, leaving Campbell v. Arco Marine intact but confined to a record in which the California connections were already settled. The court did not hold that FEHA reaches this employee; it held that SpaceX had not shown it cannot. Note that the opinion is published except as to part 2 of the Discussion, which may not be cited.

The Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act of 2021 reaches only a “dispute or claim that arises or accrues on or after” March 3, 2022 — and in Combs v. Netflix the Ninth Circuit decided, for the first time in the circuit, what each of those words means. A claim accrues when the plaintiff has a complete and present cause of action; a dispute arises, in the employment setting, when an employee registers disagreement with the employer — internally, externally or otherwise — and the employer expressly or constructively opposes that position. The panel rejected both extremes: a dispute need not await a formal agency or court filing, but neither does it arise merely because the harassment happened. On Jessica Combs's own allegations — years of internal complaints that Netflix ignored, and a firing in December 2021 — both triggers fell before the cut-off, the EFAA did not apply, and her arbitration agreement was enforced. The decision is the gateway authority for every EFAA fight in the circuit, and it cuts in both directions.

Luis Betanco delivered Living Spaces furniture from the retailer's California distribution centers to California customers and never crossed a state line. In a published decision filed June 25, 2026, the First District held he is still a 'transportation worker' exempt from the Federal Arbitration Act, because he was actively engaged in the interstate transportation of goods even though he made retail — not wholesale — deliveries. The furniture was inevitably destined from the outset of its interstate journey to his customers, so it never left the interstate stream even though it paused in a California warehouse. Because the FAA does not reach a section 1-exempt worker, Labor Code section 229 kept his statutory wage claims in court, and his representative PAGA claims survived under Adolph v. Uber Technologies. The order was affirmed.

A Tesla yard hostler who moved 53-foot trailers of out-of-state auto parts around the Fremont factory — never crossing a state line — sued for wage-and-hour violations, and Tesla moved to compel individual arbitration. In the published portion of its opinion, the First District holds yard hostlers are FAA section 1 transportation workers exempt from arbitration, and clarifies which wage claims Labor Code section 229 keeps in court.

A former UPS seasonal driver sued for wage violations; the district court compelled arbitration of her individual claims but refused to decide whether the FAA or state arbitration law governed, reasoning the result was the same. The Ninth Circuit grants a writ of mandamus: under New Prime, the court — not an arbitrator — must decide whether the FAA section 1 transportation-worker exclusion applies before compelling arbitration.

A staffing agency hired a worker under an arbitration agreement and placed him at a client; when the placement ended, the client hired him directly, and he later sued the client over that direct-employment period. The First District affirms denial of arbitration: the client was not a party or “affiliate” of the agency, the claims fell outside the agreement’s scope, and the worker was not equitably estopped — a nonsignatory cannot simply borrow a staffing agency’s arbitration clause.

A railcar repairman who inspected and repaired freight cars taken out of service in a rail yard brought a wage-and-hour class action and argued his arbitration agreement was exempt as a transportation worker’s contract. The Second District disagrees: he is neither a “railroad employee” nor a “transportation worker” under FAA section 1, because repairing decommissioned cars is too far removed from actual transportation — so his arbitration agreement and class waiver are enforceable.

Studebaker made a new employee sign three onboarding arbitration documents; the trial court found their “conflicts” showed no valid agreement and denied arbitration. The Second District reverses and compels arbitration — ambiguities must be reconciled to give effect to the intent to arbitrate, the agreement was not unconscionable, and an inconsistent wholesale PAGA waiver should have been severed.

After two of four bellwether arbitrators found a travel-nursing agency’s arbitration agreements invalid, a district court used non-mutual offensive collateral estoppel to void 255 other employees’ separate agreements. The Ninth Circuit reverses: the FAA guarantees individualized, one-on-one proceedings, and forbids using other arbitrators’ rulings to invalidate other parties’ agreements wholesale.

The California Supreme Court granted review on March 25, 2026 in Barbosa v. Sierra Pacific Orthopaedic Center Medical Group to decide whether an arbitration agreement that designates the Federal Arbitration Act thereby imports the FAA's substantive provisions and their preemptive force, even where no interstate commerce is shown. The underlying Court of Appeal opinion is nonpublished, and the Court denied the requests to publish it on granting review. The paired grant-and-hold, Tuufuli v. West Coast Dental Administrative Services, is published but itself under review, and answered the question yes. This pending-review analysis sets out the Court's own issue statement, the competing answers below with their correct citability under rule 8.1115(e)(1), and what the answer decides for Armendariz, Labor Code section 432.6, the arbitration-fee statutes and the EFAA.

The California Supreme Court holds that illegible, one-sided arbitration print is procedural (not substantive) unconscionability — and that no presumption favors arbitration.

Twenty-two months into a wage-and-hour class action, TEKsystems rolled out a new mandatory arbitration agreement to the recruiter class members and moved to compel arbitration. The Ninth Circuit affirms denial of that motion: Rule 23(d) lets a district court refuse to enforce an agreement obtained through misleading, mid-litigation communications that threaten the fairness of the class action — the FAA gives arbitration no special protection.

Marshalls moved to compel arbitration of the individual component of a single-count PAGA action under a 2014 arbitration agreement, relying on Viking River. Division Four affirmed the denial on pure contract grounds: the parties would have had to be clairvoyant to anticipate a distinction the Supreme Court would not draw for another eight years. The court expressly declined to enter the headless-PAGA dispute, and the authoring justice wrote separately at length questioning whether Viking River's federally imposed claim-splitting rule is constitutionally sound.

California's fee-default statutes have become the most-used route out of employer-drafted arbitration, and in August 2025 the Supreme Court rewrote how they work. Code of Civil Procedure sections 1281.97 and 1281.98 still declare that a drafting party who pays the arbitrator more than 30 days late is in material breach, in default, and has waived its right to compel arbitration. But in Hohenshelt v. Superior Court the court held, 5-2, that this scheme survives FAA preemption only on a construction that leaves intact the background relief-from-forfeiture provisions — Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision (b) and Civil Code sections 3275 and 1511 — so that the loss of the arbitral forum follows only from nonpayment that was willful, grossly negligent, or fraudulent. Mandatory monetary sanctions under section 1281.99, subdivision (a) still follow automatically. This synthesis sets out the operative statutory text and credit lines, traces the eleven Court of Appeal decisions the Supreme Court disapproved, states the post-Hohenshelt rule as a four-step sequence, shows how the first published application (Wilson v. Tap Worldwide) deployed it as an as-applied preemption argument, and identifies what remains open — including whether the same construction governs section 1281.97.

The University of California refuses to employ undocumented students who lack federal work authorization. The First District held that the policy facially discriminates based on immigration status under the FEHA national-origin regulations, and that the University’s only justification — fear that the federal government might read IRCA to cover it and prosecute — could not sustain the policy, because the University never attempted the regulation’s clear-and-convincing showing that federal law requires the discrimination. The court issued a writ directing the Regents to reconsider the policy on proper criteria, while pointedly declining to decide whether IRCA applies to state entities at all.

A correctional officer with permanent physical restrictions wanted CDCR to file for industrial disability retirement on her behalf. CDCR instead offered a medical demotion to a personnel specialist position, which she declined after disclosing a new mental health condition that kept her off work entirely. Division Two affirmed summary judgment on all five FEHA counts and held that a PERS disability retirement is not a reasonable accommodation – because it is a separation from employment, while every statutory example of accommodation aims at returning the employee to work. The medical demotion CDCR did offer, which carries a right of reinstatement if the condition improves, was treated as the accommodation FEHA required on this record.

Delivery drivers sued for wage and misclassification violations; their employer moved to compel arbitration and dismiss. A unanimous Supreme Court held that FAA § 3 gives a district court no discretion to dismiss a suit it sends to arbitration when a party requests a stay — ‘shall’ means ‘shall’ and ‘stay’ means ‘stay.’ Staying rather than dismissing preserves the parties’ return ticket to court if arbitration breaks down, a point with real stakes for employees whose employers later default on arbitration fees.

A unanimous Supreme Court held that the Federal Arbitration Act’s § 1 exemption for transportation workers turns on what a worker does, not the industry the employer occupies. Bakery-goods delivery drivers who sued for wage violations therefore could not be forced into arbitration merely because their employer sells bread rather than transportation. The decision resolves a circuit split and completes the § 1 line running from Circuit City through Saxon, while expressly leaving open whether these particular distributors qualify as transportation workers at all.

Between Viking River in June 2022 and Adolph in July 2023, federal courts across California dismissed the non-individual half of PAGA cases for want of standing, on the United States Supreme Court's reading of California law. In Johnson the Ninth Circuit says what to do about those dismissals while the case is still on appeal: affirm the order compelling arbitration of the individual PAGA claim, vacate the dismissal of the non-individual claims – not because the district court erred, but because the California Supreme Court has since corrected the state-law premise – and remand so the district court can apply Adolph. The panel also rejected the argument that Adolph cannot be reconciled with Viking River. Judge Lee concurred to flag what he called a lurking tension between Adolph's bifurcation procedure and the Federal Arbitration Act: if an arbitrator's findings in a low-stakes individual arbitration can bind in a high-stakes representative action, the economics of arbitration change. He saw no irreconcilable conflict on these facts, and explained why – which is also a map of how the argument will be made next time.

California religious-accommodation litigation runs on two tracks that are routinely confused, and Groff v. DeJoy answers only one of them. Groff told the lower courts that the de minimis gloss they had drawn from a single line of Hardison does not establish undue hardship, and that an employer must instead show substantial increased costs in relation to the conduct of its particular business — while expressly declining to adopt the ADA's "significant difficulty or expense" standard, which is the very phrase Government Code section 12926, subdivision (u) has long used to define undue hardship under FEHA. This analysis sets the two texts side by side, states precisely what Groff did and did not do to Hardison, traces the collective-bargaining limit through Soldinger, and then marks the point at which none of it matters: where the ministerial exception applies, it is an affirmative defence that removes the claim rather than a weight in the hardship calculus.

The Ninth Circuit held the Federal Arbitration Act preempts AB 51 (Labor Code § 432.6), California's attempt to ban mandatory employment arbitration, because a state rule that burdens the formation of arbitration agreements stands as an obstacle to the FAA.

The FAA preempts Iskanian to the extent it bars division of a PAGA action and prevents arbitration of an employee’s individual PAGA claim; an employer may compel the individual PAGA claim to arbitration. (The Supreme Court further opined that, under its reading of California law, the plaintiff would then lack standing…

Morgan v. Sundance, Inc.A court may not condition waiver of the right to arbitrate on a showing that the opposing party was prejudiced; the FAA’s “policy favoring arbitration” places arbitration agreements on equal footing with other contracts and does not authorize arbitration-specific procedural rules.Morgan v. Sundance, Inc. (2022) 596 U.S. 411Parallel citations: 142 S.Ct. 1708; […]