For reprint rights or to purchase a copy of your Daily Journal photo, email jeremy@reprintpros.com for prices or call 949-702-5390.

To buy more copies, call 866-531-1492 or email subscribe@dailyjournal.com
This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.
Subscribe to the Daily Journal for access to Daily Appellate Reports, Verdicts, Judicial Profiles and more...
Daily appellate reports
Sign up for Daily Journal emails
    Filter by date
     to 
    Search by Case Name
    Search by Judge
    Search by Case Number
    Search by DJ Citation Number
    Search by Category
    Search by Court
Name Category Published
Ward v. United Airlines, Inc.
Wage Order No. 9 does not bar Labor Code Section 226 wage statement claims by interstate transportation workers in a collective bargaining agreement. 		Labor Law CASC Jun. 30, 2020
International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Local 396 v. NASA Services Inc.
Failure to satisfy a condition precedent to formation results in an unenforceable contract. 		Labor Law 9th May 4, 2020
International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees Local 15 v. National Labor Relations Board
Employers asserting only an unwillingness to pay have no duty to produce information about their financial viability upon request from Union. 		Labor Law 9th Apr. 30, 2020
McPherson v. EF Intercultural Foundation, Inc.
Trial court erred in ruling that that Labor Code Section 227.3 applied to a non-California resident. 		Labor Law 2DCA/3 Apr. 3, 2020
Scalia v. Employer Solutions Staffing Group LLC
Ordinarily, two-year statute of limitations applies to claims under Fair Labor Standards Act, but for 'willful violation,' limitations period extends to three years. 		Labor Law 9th Mar. 3, 2020
International Union of Operating Engineer Local 501 v. National Labor Relations Board
Casino's slot technicians were not guards under National Labor Relations Act Section 9(b)(3) because they spent 90 percent of their time on gaming floor, primarily installing, maintaining, and repairing machines. 		Labor Law 9th Feb. 10, 2020
Bahra v. City of San Bernardino
Under legislative-intent exception, Plaintiff's California Labor Code Section 1102.5 claim alleging that defendants fired plaintiff from his post in retaliation for his whistleblowing activities was not precluded. 		Labor Law 9th Dec. 31, 2019
Noori v. Countrywide Payroll & HR Solutions, Inc.
Employer violates Labor Code by using an unregistered acronym for a fictitious business name on employees' paychecks. 		Labor Law 3DCA Dec. 30, 2019
Danielson v. Inslee
Public employee unions may use their good faith reliance on then-existing precedent to shield themselves from retrospective monetary liability for pre-'Janus' collection of compulsory agency fees from non-union members. 		Labor Law 9th Dec. 27, 2019
Safeway Wage and Hour Cases
A task does not become exempt merely because manager undertakes it in order to contribute to smooth functioning of store; trial courts must inform jury of limiting principles. 		Labor Law 2DCA/4 Dec. 20, 2019
Lehman v. Nelson
The Electrical Workers Pacific Coast Pension Fund may only withhold union dues from workers specifically assigned to that fund; 'traveler' worker's withholdings must be transferred to their home pension fund. 		Labor Law 9th Dec. 4, 2019
O'Grady v. Merchant Exchange Productions, Inc.
'Service charge' may be a 'gratuity' that Labor Code Section 351 requires to go only to the non-managerial employees involved with the actual serving of the food and beverages. 		Labor Law 1DCA/2 Nov. 4, 2019
NLRB v. IAB Local 229
Union speech aimed at encouraging an unlawful secondary boycott under the NLRA is not subject to strict scrutiny under the First Amendment 		Labor Law 9th Oct. 29, 2019
Modification: Naranjo v. Spectrum Security Services, Inc.
Labor Code Section 226.7 actions for premium wage as statutory remedy does not entitle employees to pursue derivative penalties under Sections 203 and 226. 		Labor Law 2DCA/4 Oct. 14, 2019
Ferra v. Loews Hollywood Hotel
'Regular rate of compensation' for calculating meal or rest break premium payments is not synonymous with 'regular rate of pay' for calculating overtime premium payments. 		Labor Law 2DCA/3 Oct. 11, 2019
Gonzales v. San Gabriel Transit
Remand was necessary for the trial court to apply the ABC test adopted in 'Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. Superior Court' while plaintiff's appeal was pending. 		Labor Law 2DCA/4 Oct. 10, 2019
Naranjo v. Spectrum Security Services, Inc.
Labor Code Section 226.7 actions for premium wage as statutory remedy does not entitle employees to pursue derivative penalties under Sections 203 and 226. 		Labor Law 2DCA/4 Sep. 30, 2019
Liday v. Sim
Respondent was exempt from overtime before 2014; thus, trial court erred in calculating her rate of pay based on formula used to determine payment of overtime wages for nonexempt employees. 		Labor Law 2DCA/3 Sep. 27, 2019
Ray v. County of Los Angeles
An erroneous vacatur cannot postpone a rule's effective date until an appellate court corrects the error sometime in the future. 		Labor Law 9th Aug. 23, 2019
Senne v. Kansas City Royals Baseball
Plaintiffs satisfied class certification requirements of FRCP 23(a), 23(b)(3), and 23(b)(2), in light of plaintiffs' extensive representative evidence admissible under 'Tyson Foods v. Bouaphakeo.' 		Labor Law 9th Aug. 19, 2019
O'Rourke v. No. California Electrical Workers Pension Plan
Where an ERISA plan administrator's interpretation of what type of work falls within the plan's definition of 'prohibited employment' is strictly complied with, there is no abuse of discretion. 		Labor Law 9th Aug. 19, 2019
Tijerino v. Stetson Desert Project
Under the Fair Labor Standards Act, an employment status provision is not an antecedent jurisdictional limitation that inhibits subject matter jurisdiction. 		Labor Law 9th Aug. 19, 2019
Mejia v. Merchants Building Maintenance
A single PAGA claim seeking recovery of civil penalty under Labor Code Section 558 may not be 'split' so as to require representative employee to arbitrate that aspect of the claim. 		Labor Law 4DCA/1 Aug. 14, 2019
Dawson v. NCAA
Under California law and the Fair Labor Standards Act, student-athletes are not considered employees of the National Collegiate Athletic Association and PAC-12 Conference. 		Labor Law 9th Aug. 13, 2019
Townley v. BJ's Restaurants, Inc.
Labor Code Section 2802 does not require employers reimburse employees for costs of slip-resistant shoes not part of a uniform which are usual and generally usable in the restaurant occupation. 		Labor Law 3DCA Jul. 9, 2019
Stoetzl v. Dept. of Human Resources
Fair Labor Standards Act's definition of compensable work time, which excludes pre- and postwork activities, governed state correctional employees' claims for failure to pay minimum wage over applicable wage order. 		Labor Law CASC Jul. 2, 2019
Modification: Esparza v. Safeway, Inc.
Appellants failed to submit evidence raising triable issue of material fact regarding whether defendant's challenged conduct harmed class members in manner entitling them to restitution; thus, summary adjudication was proper. 		Labor Law 2DCA/4 Jul. 1, 2019
Esparza v. Safeway, Inc.
Appellants failed to submit evidence raising triable issue of material fact regarding whether defendant's challenged conduct harmed class members in manner entitling them to restitution; thus, summary adjudication was proper. 		Labor Law 2DCA/4 Jun. 12, 2019
Parker Drilling Management Services, Ltd. v. Newton
Under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, if federal law addresses the relevant issue, state law is not adopted as surrogate federal law on the outer continental shelf. 		Labor Law USSC Jun. 11, 2019
Beckington v. American Airlines
Employees may not sue their employer under Railway Labor Act for allegedly 'colluding' with union in union's breach of duty; thus district court's judgment dismissing plaintiffs' claim was affirmed. 		Labor Law 9th Jun. 11, 2019
By using our website, you agree to our use of cookies in accordance with our cookie policy. You can learn more about how we use cookies by reviewing our Privacy Policy here.