15 Cited authorities

Yanowitz v. L'Oreal USA Inc.
36 Cal.4th 1028 (Cal. 2005) Cited 1,569 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."
Anderson v. Mt. Clemens Pottery Co.
328 U.S. 680 (1946) Cited 2,634 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"
Brinker Rest. Corp. v. Superior Court of San Diego Cnty.
53 Cal.4th 1004 (Cal. 2012) Cited 819 times 83 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"
Arteaga v. Brink's, Inc.
163 Cal.App.4th 327 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008) Cited 335 times 6 Legal Analyses
Holding that elements of a common law disability discrimination claim are the same as those of a FEHA claim
Nadaf-Rahrov v. Neiman Marcus Group, Inc.
166 Cal.App.4th 952 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008) Cited 305 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."
Amaral v. Cintas Corp.
163 Cal.App.4th 1157 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008) Cited 299 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that employees working on public works projects had a private right of action under the California living wage ordinance
Hanson v. Lucky Stores, Inc.
74 Cal.App.4th 215 (Cal. Ct. App. 1999) Cited 381 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"
Gelfo v. Lockhead Martin Corp.
140 Cal.App.4th 34 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006) Cited 292 times 1 Legal Analyses
Ruling that Kaplan's reasoning should not be applied to similarly limit California discrimination laws
Wills v. Superior Court
194 Cal.App.4th 312 (Cal. Ct. App. 2011) Cited 228 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"
Lelaind v. City and County of San Francisco
576 F. Supp. 2d 1079 (N.D. Cal. 2008) Cited 186 times
Holding that a manager's negative treatment could be found to be an adverse employment action if it "negatively and materially affected" the plaintiff's "ability to acquire and develop skills to advance up the career ladder"
Section 201 - Short title
29 U.S.C. § 201 Cited 21,367 times 104 Legal Analyses
Setting fourteen as the minimum age for most non-agricultural work
Section 510 - Eight hour workday; compensation for overtime
Cal. Lab. Code § 510 Cited 1,643 times 29 Legal Analyses
Requiring employers to pay 1.5 times the "regular rate of pay" for overtime

Brief Trial

15 Cited authorities

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."

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"

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"

Holding that elements of a common law disability discrimination claim are the same as those of a FEHA claim

Holding that "an employer's failure to engage in the interactive process is an unlawful employment practice . . . only if a reasonable accommodation existed."

Holding that employees working on public works projects had a private right of action under the California living wage ordinance

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"

Ruling that Kaplan's reasoning should not be applied to similarly limit California discrimination laws

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"

Holding that a manager's negative treatment could be found to be an adverse employment action if it "negatively and materially affected" the plaintiff's "ability to acquire and develop skills to advance up the career ladder"

Setting fourteen as the minimum age for most non-agricultural work

Requiring employers to pay 1.5 times the "regular rate of pay" for overtime