The Employment Docket: Cases Pending Before the California Supreme Court
Current as of July 1, 2026 · Built from the Supreme Court of California’s official Issues Pending Before the California Supreme Court in Civil Cases compilation (most recent release: April 24, 2026). Issue statements below are quoted from the Court’s compilation; the Court cautions that they “do not necessarily reflect the views of the court, or define the specific issues that will be addressed.”
In brief. Eight granted-review matters now pending before the California Supreme Court will shape employment litigation: the fate of “headless” PAGA actions (Leeper), neutral time-rounding (Camp), defamation claims arising from terminations (Hearn), the ministerial exception’s reach over wage claims (Lorenzo), contracting into FAA preemption (Barbosa), forum-selection clauses against unwaivable rights (Lathrop), appellate scrutiny of slashed fee awards (Cash), and two-option section 998 offers (Gorobets). This page states each question as the Court itself frames it, explains the stakes, and links our related coverage. It is updated on each release of the Court’s pending-issues compilation and as decisions come down.
By Jonathan J. Delshad
Founder & Editor-in-Chief
1. About this page
A grant of review is where California employment doctrine goes to be remade. Under rule 8.1115(e)(1) of the California Rules of Court, a published Court of Appeal opinion loses binding force once the Supreme Court grants review — it may be cited only for its potential persuasive value while review is pending — so a practitioner who briefs these areas without tracking the docket risks resting on authority that is no longer authority. This page tracks every pending matter we judge material to California employment practice, quoting the operative issue statement from the Court’s official compilation and noting the decision below, the docket number, and what turns on the answer. When the Court decides a tracked case, the entry moves to our analysis of the decision — as happened this term with Fuentes v. Empire Nissan, Inc. (2026) 19 Cal.5th 93, Hohenshelt v. Superior Court (2025) 18 Cal.5th 310, and Iloff v. LaPaille (2025) 18 Cal.5th 551 (see section 10).
2. Leeper v. Shipt, Inc. — “headless” PAGA actions
Leeper v. Shipt, Inc., S289305 (review of (2024) 107 Cal.App.5th 1001 [Second District]; Los Angeles County Superior Court No. 24STCV06485). Review ordered on the Court’s own motion. The Court limited review to two questions, as stated in its compilation: “(1) Does every Private Attorneys General Act (Lab. Code, § 2698 et seq.) (PAGA) action necessarily include both individual and non-individual PAGA claims, regardless of whether the complaint specifically alleges individual claims? (2) Can a plaintiff choose to bring only a non-individual PAGA action?”
Why it matters. This is the highest-stakes employment case on the docket. After Viking River and Adolph, plaintiffs began pleading PAGA actions with no individual component — “headless” actions — leaving nothing for the employer to compel to arbitration. The Second District in Leeper held every PAGA action necessarily contains an individual claim that can be sent to arbitration; the Fifth District (CRST Expedited) and Fourth District (Rodriguez v. Packers Sanitation Services (2025) 109 Cal.App.5th 69) held plaintiffs may proceed on a purely representative complaint. The answer decides whether the headless pleading strategy survives. Our full analysis of the split: Headless PAGA: Leeper v. Shipt and the Split the Supreme Court Will Resolve. Related: Adolph v. Uber Technologies, Viking River Cruises v. Moriana, Kim v. Reins International.
3. Camp v. Home Depot — neutral time-rounding
Camp v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., S277518 (review of (2022) 84 Cal.App.5th 638 [Sixth District]; Santa Clara County Superior Court No. 19CV344872). The Court’s issue statement: “Under California law, are employers permitted to use neutral time-rounding practices to calculate employees’ work time for payroll purposes?”
Why it matters. The See’s Candy line blessed facially neutral rounding a decade ago, but Troester‘s rejection of the federal de minimis doctrine and Camp‘s reasoning — that an employer that can capture exact minutes must pay for them — put the entire practice in doubt. Any wage claim involving timekeeping software should preserve the rounding issue pending decision. Related: Troester v. Starbucks, Donohue v. AMN Services, and our guide to off-the-clock work and hours worked.
4. Hearn v. Pacific Gas & Electric — defamation and the discharge
Hearn v. Pacific Gas & Electric Co., S289581 (review of (2025) 108 Cal.App.5th 301 [First District]; Napa County Superior Court No. 20CV000391). The Court limited review to a single question: “May a terminated employee bring a defamation claim against a former employer when the defamation allegedly contributed to the reasons for the termination of that employment or must such a claim be pursued under a wrongful discharge theory?”
Why it matters. Terminations are routinely accompanied by internal statements of cause — investigation findings, HR write-ups, announcements to coworkers — and plaintiffs have long pleaded those statements as defamation alongside the discharge claims, reaching tort damages (and individual defendants) that contract-based theories cannot. Hearn will decide whether the defamation count is an independent tort or is swallowed by the wrongful-discharge framework. Our full analysis, including the compelled self-publication doctrine the decision may revive or bury: Defamation in the Termination: Hearn v. PG&E.
5. Lorenzo v. San Francisco Zen Center — ministerial exception vs. wage claims
Lorenzo v. San Francisco Zen Center, S294565 (review of (2026) 116 Cal.App.5th 258 [First District]; San Francisco County Superior Court No. CGC22602047). The Court limited review to: “Does the ministerial exception arising under the Religion Clauses of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution categorically preclude wage and hour claims by a minister against a religious organization without any inquiry into whether the claim touches upon any ecclesiastical concern?”
Why it matters. Hosanna-Tabor and Our Lady of Guadalupe made the ministerial exception nearly absolute for discrimination claims by ministers. Lorenzo asks whether it sweeps as broadly over minimum-wage and overtime claims — where the remedy arguably regulates pay, not the selection of ministers. The answer will control wage litigation against religious employers statewide. Related: our analysis of Ehrenkranz v. San Francisco Zen Center, a Court of Appeal decision involving the same institution and doctrine.
6. Barbosa v. Sierra Pacific Orthopaedic — contracting into FAA preemption
Barbosa v. Sierra Pacific Orthopaedic Center Medical Group, Inc., S294710 (review of a nonpublished Fifth District opinion, F088971; Fresno County Superior Court No. 23CECG04847). The Court’s issue statement: “If an arbitration agreement provides that disputes will be resolved under the Federal Arbitration Act (9 U.S.C. § 1 et seq.; the FAA), do the FAA’s substantive provisions apply and preempt inconsistent state laws regardless of whether interstate commerce is involved?”
Why it matters. This is the question Hohenshelt left open. After the Court held that Code of Civil Procedure section 1281.98’s fee-payment deadline, properly construed, survives FAA scrutiny, drafters looked to choice-of-law language as the next escape route: if the agreement itself “selects” the FAA, does that displace sections 1281.97–1281.99 even in a purely intrastate employment relationship? The answer will determine how much of California’s arbitration-default machinery survives contact with a well-drafted agreement. Related: Hohenshelt v. Superior Court, our statute posts on section 1281.97 and section 1281.98, and the FAA.
7. Lathrop v. Thor Motor Coach — forum selection and unwaivable rights
Lathrop v. Thor Motor Coach, Inc., S287893 (review of (2024) 105 Cal.App.5th 808 [Second District]; Los Angeles County Superior Court No. 22NWCV01494). The Court’s issue statement poses three questions: “(1) Where a party alleges that enforcement of a forum selection clause would result in a waiver of the party’s unwaivable statutory rights, what is the showing necessary to enforce (or avoid enforcement) of such a clause, and which party bears the burden of proof on the issue? (2) Under what circumstances, if any, does a stipulation to apply California law in the selected forum rebut an allegation that enforcement of a forum selection clause would result in a waiver of a party’s unwaivable statutory rights? (3) If enforcement of a choice of law clause would result in a waiver of a party’s unwaivable statutory rights, is the choice of law clause severable from the remainder of the agreement?”
Why it matters. Lathrop is a consumer (vehicle-warranty) case, but the doctrine it will settle — who bears what burden when a forum-selection clause threatens unwaivable California statutory rights — is the same doctrine that governs employment forum fights, where Labor Code section 925 restricts out-of-state forum and choice-of-law terms for California-based employees and FEHA rights are unwaivable. Employment practitioners litigating section 925 carve-outs, executive agreements predating 2017, or exempted attorney-negotiated contracts will brief whatever framework Lathrop announces. See our guide to compelling arbitration of FEHA claims.
8. Cash v. County of Los Angeles — appellate review of slashed fee awards
Cash v. County of Los Angeles, S291827 (review of (2025) 111 Cal.App.5th 741 [Second District]; Los Angeles County Superior Court No. BC718190). The Court’s issue statement: “(1) Did the trial court’s across-the-board reduction of the fees requested by plaintiff’s counsel trigger heightened scrutiny of its fee order on appeal? (2) Did the trial court commit reversible error in reducing the fee request on an across-the-board basis?”
Why it matters. Fee awards are the engine of private FEHA enforcement, and across-the-board percentage cuts are the most common way trial courts trim lodestars. Whether such cuts draw heightened appellate scrutiny — and what a trial court must explain to sustain them — will directly shape every contested FEHA, PAGA, and wage-and-hour fee motion. Related: Williams v. Chino Valley Independent Fire District, Ketchum v. Moses, Chavez v. City of Los Angeles, and our statute post on Government Code section 12965.
9. Gorobets v. Jaguar Land Rover — two-option section 998 offers
Gorobets v. Jaguar Land Rover North America, LLC, S287946 (review of (2024) 105 Cal.App.5th 913 [Second District]; Los Angeles County Superior Court No. 19STCV11540). The Court’s issue statement: “Is a settlement offer under Code of Civil Procedure section 998 that contains two options inherently invalid, presumptively invalid, or invalid or partially or entirely valid depending on a separate and independent evaluation of each option?”
Why it matters. Section 998 offers are the defense bar’s principal cost-shifting lever against employment plaintiffs, and compound or alternative-structure offers are a recurring validity battleground. Although Gorobets arises under the Song-Beverly Act, the validity rules it announces will govern 998 practice in employment cases — where the interaction between 998 cost-shifting and FEHA’s asymmetric costs regime (Gov. Code, § 12965(c)(6)) already demands careful drafting. Related: Williams v. Chino Valley and Government Code section 12965.
10. Recently decided (moved off the watch list)
Fuentes v. Empire Nissan, Inc. (2026) 19 Cal.5th 93 (decided Feb. 2, 2026) — format and illegibility bear on procedural, not substantive, unconscionability, but high procedural unconscionability compels close scrutiny of a contract’s terms with no presumption favoring arbitration. See our full analysis.
Hohenshelt v. Superior Court (2025) 18 Cal.5th 310 (decided Aug. 21, 2025) — Code of Civil Procedure section 1281.98’s arbitration-fee deadline, construed to permit relief for good-faith mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect, is not preempted. See our full analysis.
Iloff v. LaPaille (2025) 18 Cal.5th 551 (decided Aug. 21, 2025) — the good-faith defense to liquidated damages under Labor Code section 1194.2 requires proof of a reasonable attempt to determine the law’s requirements; unraised paid-sick-leave claims may be litigated in a Berman appeal. Our analysis of Iloff v. LaPaille is now available.
11. Sources and maintenance
Issue statements are quoted verbatim from the Supreme Court of California’s Issues Pending Before the California Supreme Court in Civil Cases (compilations of January 9 and April 24, 2026), which the Court publishes to inform the public of the general subject matter of granted-review cases. Docket numbers, lower-court citations, and superior-court case numbers are drawn from the same compilations. This page is revised on each new compilation release and within days of any decision in a tracked case; the “Current as of” date above reflects the last revision. Under rule 8.1115(e)(1), Court of Appeal opinions under review may be cited only for potential persuasive value — confirm citability before relying on any decision listed here.