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 § 16608
- Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200
- Bus. & Prof. Code § 7451
- CAFA (28 U.S.C. § 1332(d))
- CFRA
- Cal. Const. art. I, § 1 (Privacy)
- Cal. Const., art. I, § 8
- Civ. Code § 1642
- Civ. Code § 1670.5
- Civ. Code § 1714
- Civ. Code § 1786 (ICRAA)
- Civ. Code § 1946.2 (Tenant Protection Act)
- Civ. Code § 3291
- Civ. Code § 47
- Code Civ. Proc. § 1001
- Code Civ. Proc. § 1094.5
- Code Civ. Proc. § 128.7
- Code Civ. Proc. § 1281
- Code Civ. Proc. § 1281.2
- Code Civ. Proc. § 1281.97
- Code Civ. Proc. § 1281.98
- Code Civ. Proc. § 1281.99
- Code Civ. Proc. § 1294
- Code Civ. Proc. § 437c
- Code Civ. Proc. § 527.8
- Common law (Tameny)
- Compassionate Use Act
- EFAA (9 U.S.C. § 401 et seq.)
- 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
- FLSA (29 U.S.C. § 216(b))
- False Claims Act (31 U.S.C. § 3730)
- Gov. Code § 12653 (CFCA)
- Gov. Code § 12923
- Gov. Code § 12926.1
- Gov. Code § 12930
- Gov. Code § 12945
- Gov. Code § 12945.8
- Gov. Code § 12954
- Gov. Code § 12960
- Gov. Code § 12963.1
- Gov. Code § 12963.5
- Gov. Code § 12964.5
- Gov. Code § 12965
- Gov. Code § 12981
- Gov. Code § 8547.10
- Gov. Code § 855.4
- Health & Saf. Code § 1278.5
- IWC Wage Order No. 16
- IWC Wage Order No. 4-2001
- IWC Wage Order No. 7
- Lab. Code § 1050
- Lab. Code § 1054
- Lab. Code § 1102.5
- Lab. Code § 1102.6
- Lab. Code § 1106
- Lab. Code § 1171.5
- Lab. Code § 1194
- Lab. Code § 132a
- Lab. Code § 203
- Lab. Code § 204
- Lab. Code § 219
- Lab. Code § 226
- Lab. Code § 226.2
- Lab. Code § 226.7
- Lab. Code § 227.3
- Lab. Code § 229
- Lab. Code § 230
- Lab. Code § 230.1
- Lab. Code § 2699 (PAGA)
- Lab. Code § 2775
- Lab. Code § 2802
- Lab. Code § 2804
- Lab. Code § 2922
- Lab. Code § 432.6 (AB 51)
- Lab. Code § 510
- Lab. Code § 512
- Lab. Code § 558
- Lab. Code § 558.1
- Lab. Code § 6401.7
- Lab. Code § 6401.9
- Lab. Code § 926
- Lab. Code § 98.2
- Lab. Code §§ 1400–1408
- Lab. Code §§ 201–203
- Lab. Code §§ 551–552
- NLRA
- PAGA
- TVPRA (18 U.S.C. § 1595)
- Title VII
- USERRA (38 U.S.C. § 4311)
3 cases
Perez v. Rose Hills Co.
A district court remanded a California wage-and-hour class action on its own motion because the removing employer had not produced evidence justifying the violation rate behind its $15 million amount-in-controversy figure. The Ninth Circuit vacated: a CAFA defendant may rely on a chain of reasoning built from assumptions tethered to the complaint, and cannot fairly be asked to prove violations it denies ever occurred. Ibarra still bites where the defendant's reading of the pleading is unreasonable – but not merely because a lower rate was equally plausible. The uncomfortable corollary for plaintiffs is that vague frequency language such as at times is now a jurisdictional concession made at the drafting table.
Brown v. USA Taekwondo: California’s Two-Step Framework for the Duty to Protect
A unanimous California Supreme Court fixes the two-step framework for the duty to protect against third-party harm — special relationship first, the Rowland policy factors only to limit it — the controlling analysis for negligent hiring, supervision, and retention claims against employers.
Deschene v. Pinole Point Steel — Testimony Retaliation, Disability Pretext, and the Limits of LMRA § 301 Preemption
A steelworker fired months after testifying in a coworker’s asbestos case revived his public-policy and FEHA disability claims: they required no CBA interpretation, his union could not waive his judicial forum, and coworker evidence that the termination-night incident was staged made pretext a jury question.
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.