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)
6 cases
Hohenshelt v. Superior Court: §1281.98 Arbitration-Fee Deadlines Survive FAA Preemption — Without Automatic Forfeiture
The California Supreme Court holds that CCP §1281.98's arbitration-fee-payment forfeiture rule is not preempted by the FAA — but, rejecting the rigid automatic-forfeiture reading, only where a late payment is willful, grossly negligent, or fraudulent rather than a good-faith mistake or excusable neglect.
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.
Cvejic v. Skyview Capital, LLC
Analysis · Key Case Cvejic v. Skyview Capital, LLC (2023) 92 Cal.App.5th 1073 Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Eight · Docket No. B318880 · Decided June 28, 2023 Verify before relying. A summary and analysis as of its publication date — not legal advice, and not a representation that the decision remains good […]
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, […]
Green v. State of California
The employee bears the burden of proving he or she is a qualified individual under the FEHA — that is, able to perform the essential duties of the position with or without reasonable accommodation — just as the federal ADA requires; it is not the employer’s burden to disprove qualification.
Colmenares v. Braemar Country Club, Inc.
The FEHA requires only that a physiological disease or condition affecting a body system “limit” — not “substantially limit” — the plaintiff’s ability to participate in a major life activity, a standard broader than the federal ADA; the later Poppink Act merely clarified, and did not change, that existing “limits”…
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.