The Review · Case Index
California employment case index
Search every indexed California wrongful-termination and employment decision, or browse by subject area, statute, and decade — each summary source-verified against the published reporter.
The index
Browse the case index
Select any subject area, statute, or decade to filter the indexed decisions. Combine filters to narrow further.
Subject Area
- Arbitration
- At-will & implied contract
- Civil Procedure
- Class Actions
- Disability & Accommodation
- Discrimination
- Harassment
- Independent Contractor & Misclassification
- Leave & Medical
- Negligent hiring / supervision / retention
- PAGA
- Privacy
- Remedies & Fees
- Retaliation
- Statutes
- Trade Secrets & Non-Compete
- Wage & hour
- Whistleblower
- Wrongful Termination
Statute
- 42 U.S.C. § 1981
- ADA
- ADEA
- Bus. & Prof. Code § 16600
- Bus. & Prof. Code § 7451
- CFRA
- Cal. Const. art. I, § 1 (Privacy)
- Cal. Const., art. I, § 8
- Civ. Code § 1670.5
- Civ. Code § 1714
- Civ. Code § 1786 (ICRAA)
- Civ. Code § 1946.2 (Tenant Protection Act)
- Civ. Code § 3291
- Code Civ. Proc. § 128.7
- Code Civ. Proc. § 1281.2
- Code Civ. Proc. § 1281.98
- Code Civ. Proc. § 437c
- Code Civ. Proc. § 527.8
- Common law (Tameny)
- Compassionate Use Act
- Ed. Code § 87160 et seq.
- FAA
- FCRA (15 U.S.C. § 1681 et seq.)
- FEHA
- FEHA — Gov. Code § 12926
- FEHA — Gov. Code § 12940
- FEHA — Gov. Code § 12941
- False Claims Act (31 U.S.C. § 3730)
- Gov. Code § 12653 (CFCA)
- Gov. Code § 12923
- Gov. Code § 12945
- Gov. Code § 12960
- Gov. Code § 12965
- Gov. Code § 8547.10
- Health & Saf. Code § 1278.5
- IWC Wage Order No. 16
- IWC Wage Order No. 7
- Lab. Code § 1102.5
- Lab. Code § 1102.6
- Lab. Code § 1106
- Lab. Code § 1194
- Lab. Code § 132a
- Lab. Code § 203
- Lab. Code § 226
- Lab. Code § 226.7
- Lab. Code § 229
- Lab. Code § 230
- Lab. Code § 2699 (PAGA)
- Lab. Code § 2775
- Lab. Code § 2922
- Lab. Code § 432.6 (AB 51)
- Lab. Code § 510
- Lab. Code § 512
- Lab. Code § 558
- Lab. Code § 98.2
- Lab. Code §§ 201–203
- NLRA
- PAGA
- TVPRA (18 U.S.C. § 1595)
- Title VII
- USERRA (38 U.S.C. § 4311)
4 cases
Naranjo v. Spectrum Security Services (Naranjo II): A Good-Faith Belief in Compliance Defeats Section 226 and Section 203 Penalties
In Naranjo II (2024) 15 Cal.5th 1056, the California Supreme Court holds that an employer’s objectively reasonable, good-faith belief that its wage statements complied with the law defeats both Labor Code § 226 penalties (no “knowing and intentional” violation) and § 203 waiting-time penalties (no “willful” failure) — harmonizing the two penalty statutes around a common good-faith defense.
Naranjo v. Spectrum Security Services: Missed-Break Premium Pay Is “Wages” Supporting §203 and §226 Penalties
Naranjo v. Spectrum Security Services, Inc. (Naranjo I)Premium pay owed for missed meal and rest breaks under Labor Code section 226.7 constitutes “wages,” so it must be reported on wage statements under section 226 and is subject to waiting-time penalties under section 203 when not timely paid at separation.Naranjo v. Spectrum Security Services, Inc. (2022) […]
Badih v. Myers: Pregnancy Discrimination Is Sex Discrimination Under the California Constitution
Nine days after Fatmeh Badih told her employer — a physician with fewer than five employees — that she was pregnant, her last day was set; the DFEH would not even accept her complaint because the office was too small for the FEHA. Division One of the First District affirmed her wrongful-discharge verdict anyway, holding that pregnancy discrimination is a form of sex discrimination under article I, section 8 of the California Constitution, whose fundamental public policy against sex discrimination in employment binds every employer regardless of size. Jennings v. Marralle was distinguished, not disturbed: age has no constitutional anchor, but sex — and therefore pregnancy — does. Badih remains the pleading answer for pregnancy discharges at California's smallest workplaces.
Lakin v. Watkins Associated Industries: Section 3291 Prejudgment Interest, Fee-Order Appealability, and No Interest on Punitives
In Lakin v. Watkins Associated Industries (1993) 6 Cal.4th 644, a unanimous California Supreme Court resolved three recurring procedural and damages questions: a postjudgment order denying discovery-sanction (cost-of-proof) attorney fees is separately appealable; a personal-injury plaintiff bears the burden of proving which portion of a general award is “damages for personal injury” before claiming Civil Code section 3291 prejudgment interest; and that interest never accrues on punitive damages. The court reversed the Court of Appeal and remanded.
For practitioners
Practice guides
Each guide gathers and summarizes the controlling cases and authorities on a single question — a research starting point you can cite from.
Practice guideRetaliation under Lab. Code § 1102.5A practitioner’s synthesis of the controlling cases and authorities.Practice guideFEHA discrimination & the McDonnell Douglas testA practitioner’s synthesis of the controlling cases and authorities.Practice guideTermination in violation of public policyA practitioner’s synthesis of the controlling cases and authorities.Practice guideCompelling arbitration of FEHA claimsA practitioner’s synthesis of the controlling cases and authorities.Practice guideDisability discrimination & reasonable accommodationA practitioner’s synthesis of the controlling cases and authorities.Practice guideSexual harassment under FEHAA practitioner’s synthesis of the controlling cases and authorities.Practice guideOff-the-clock work & compensable hours workedA practitioner’s synthesis of the controlling cases and authorities.Practice guideMeal & rest breaks & premium payA practitioner’s synthesis of the controlling cases and authorities.Practice guideWage & hour class actions & PAGAA practitioner’s synthesis of the controlling cases and authorities.Practice guideIndependent-contractor misclassification & the ABC testA practitioner’s synthesis of the controlling cases and authorities.