California employment case index

A divided First District panel threw out a $2.16 million defamation verdict, holding that a fired PG&E lineman's defamation claim was wrongful termination by another name: the statements came from the same conduct that caused the discharge, and the damages flowed from the job loss alone. Presiding Justice Tucher dissented in part, arguing the majority had invented an employer immunity the Supreme Court has already disclaimed. The California Supreme Court granted review, limited to whether a terminated employee may bring a defamation claim when the defamation contributed to the reasons for the termination, or must instead plead wrongful discharge. The opinion remains published and citable for persuasive value with the required review-granted notation; part II is unpublished. Analysis of a pending matter — confirm the status of S289581 before relying on anything here.

A solar-project electrician queued unpaid at a security gate while guards inspected vehicles, drove miles of access road under strict site rules, and ate lunch confined to a designated area under a CBA calling meal periods “unpaid.” Answering the Ninth Circuit, a unanimous Supreme Court held the exit procedure is compensable “hours worked”; the gate-to-lot drive is compensable only as “employer-mandated travel,” and only if the gate is the first location required for a reason beyond site access; and no collective bargaining agreement can waive the minimum wage for a meal period during which the employer’s confinement forecloses otherwise feasible personal activities.

The employee-non-solicitation provision was void under section 16600 because it restrained the individual defendants — recruiters whose profession is recruiting and placing nurses — from engaging in their chosen profession; applying Edwards, the court declined to use the older “reasonableness” analysis and held such…

Section 16600 voids contracts that restrain anyone from engaging in a lawful profession, trade, or business; Edwards’s noncompetition agreement was therefore invalid. California does not recognize the federal courts’ “narrow-restraint” exception — even a limited or partial restraint on practicing one’s profession is…