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
People v. Uber Technologies: Rideshare Drivers Are Likely Employees Under Prong B of the ABC Test
The Court of Appeal affirms a statewide preliminary injunction against Uber and Lyft, holding the People likely to prevail under prong B of the ABC test (Lab. Code, § 2775) — rideshare driving is within the usual course of the companies’ business — and rejecting the “technology platform” defense as a false dichotomy. (Predates Proposition 22; see Castellanos.)
Gonzalez v. Downtown LA Motors, LP
Piece-rate employees are entitled to separate hourly compensation for time spent waiting for repair work or performing other nonrepair tasks directed by the employer during their work shifts; piece-rate earnings cannot be averaged across that nonproductive time to satisfy the minimum-wage obligation (215 Cal.App.4th…
Staub v. Proctor Hospital: “Cat’s Paw” (Subordinate-Bias) Liability Under USERRA and Title VII
The Supreme Court’s foundational “cat’s paw” decision: an employer is liable when a biased supervisor performs an act intended to cause an adverse employment action that is a proximate cause of the ultimate decision — even if the formal decisionmaker had no discriminatory animus. A decisionmaker’s “independent investigation” does not automatically break the causal chain, especially when it credits the biased actor’s report without independently confirming the action was justified.
Pineda v. Bank of America, N.A.
Section 203(b) contains a single, three-year limitations period governing all actions for section 203 penalties, regardless of whether the penalty claim is accompanied by a claim for unpaid final wages; and the penalties may be recovered even though the underlying wages were eventually paid.
Smith v. Superior Court (L’Oreal)
“Discharge” under sections 201 and 203 includes not only firing but also releasing an employee upon completion of the particular job assignment or time duration for which he or she was hired; final wages are then immediately due, and a willful failure to pay triggers waiting-time penalties.
Armenta v. Osmose, Inc.
California does not permit wage averaging: the minimum-wage standard applies to each hour worked, and an employer must pay at least the minimum wage for every compensable hour; it cannot use higher pay for some hours to offset unpaid or sub-minimum hours.
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.