15 Cited authorities

  1. Yanowitz v. L'Oreal USA Inc.

    36 Cal.4th 1028 (Cal. 2005)   Cited 1,547 times   11 Legal Analyses
    Holding that to establish a "protected activity," an "employee's communications to the employer [must] sufficiently convey the employee's reasonable concerns that the employer has acted or is acting in an unlawful discriminatory manner."
  2. Anderson v. Mt. Clemens Pottery Co.

    328 U.S. 680 (1946)   Cited 2,602 times   58 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "the damage is. . . certain" where employee proved that he performed work that was not paid in accordance with the statutes, and that damages can then be awarded if there is a "basis for a reasonable inference as to the extent of the damages"
  3. Brinker Rest. Corp. v. Superior Court of San Diego Cnty.

    53 Cal.4th 1004 (Cal. 2012)   Cited 811 times   82 Legal Analyses
    Holding the employer is required to provide a meal period to employees, but "is not obligated to police meal breaks and ensure no work thereafter is performed"
  4. Arteaga v. Brink's, Inc.

    163 Cal.App.4th 327 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008)   Cited 327 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Holding that elements of a common law disability discrimination claim are the same as those of a FEHA claim
  5. Nadaf-Rahrov v. Neiman Marcus Group, Inc.

    166 Cal.App.4th 952 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008)   Cited 300 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "an employer's failure to engage in the interactive process is an unlawful employment practice . . . only if a reasonable accommodation existed."
  6. Amaral v. Cintas Corp.

    163 Cal.App.4th 1157 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008)   Cited 296 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that employees working on public works projects had a private right of action under the California living wage ordinance
  7. Hanson v. Lucky Stores, Inc.

    74 Cal.App.4th 215 (Cal. Ct. App. 1999)   Cited 377 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "a finite leave of absence has been considered to be a reasonable accommodation under ADA, provided it is likely that following the leave the employee would be able to perform his or her duties"
  8. Gelfo v. Lockhead Martin Corp.

    140 Cal.App.4th 34 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006)   Cited 288 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Ruling that Kaplan's reasoning should not be applied to similarly limit California discrimination laws
  9. Wills v. Superior Court

    194 Cal.App.4th 312 (Cal. Ct. App. 2011)   Cited 223 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Holding "purpose of FEHA's administrative exhaustion requirement is to ensure DFEH is provided the opportunity to resolve disputes and eliminate unlawful business practices through conciliation"
  10. Sandell v. Taylor-Listug, Inc.

    188 Cal.App.4th 297 (Cal. Ct. App. 2010)   Cited 172 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that, to allege an age discrimination claim, a plaintiff must present evidence that she is over the age of forty
  11. Section 201 - Short title

    29 U.S.C. § 201   Cited 21,077 times   104 Legal Analyses
    Setting fourteen as the minimum age for most non-agricultural work
  12. Section 510 - Eight hour workday; compensation for overtime

    Cal. Lab. Code § 510   Cited 1,613 times   29 Legal Analyses
    Requiring employers to pay 1.5 times the "regular rate of pay" for overtime