Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co.
25 Cal.4th 826 (Cal. 2001) Cited 5,022 times 2 Legal AnalysesConcluding that the gathering and dissemination of pricing information by the petroleum companies through an independent industry service did not imply collusive action where there was no evidence the information was misused as a basis for an unlawful conspiracy; rather, evidence suggested that individual companies used all available resources “to determine capacity, supply, and pricing decisions which would maximize their own individual profits”
Morgan v. Regents of University of California
88 Cal.App.4th 52 (Cal. Ct. App. 2000) Cited 659 times 4 Legal AnalysesHolding plaintiff "must obtain from the [DFEH] a notice of right to sue in order to be entitled to file a civil action in court based on violations of FEHA"
Horn v. Cushman & Wakefield Western, Inc.
72 Cal.App.4th 798 (Cal. Ct. App. 1999) Cited 381 times 1 Legal AnalysesHolding that evidence of positive performance reviews, commendations, salary increases, and vague assurances that Plaintiff would become a sales manager was not sufficient to create a triable issue of fact as to whether the parties had implicitly agreed [the company's] right to terminate [him] would be limited."
Patten v. Grant Joint Union High School Dist.
134 Cal.App.4th 1378 (Cal. Ct. App. 2005) Cited 232 times 2 Legal AnalysesHolding plaintiff engaged in protected activity when she reported activity she thought was illegal
Tomaselli v. Transamerica Ins. Co.
25 Cal.App.4th 1269 (Cal. Ct. App. 1994) Cited 267 times 2 Legal AnalysesHolding conduct showing an insurer's "negligence or slipshod investigation" is not enough to support punitive damages
DeJung v. Superior Court
169 Cal.App.4th 533 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008) Cited 163 times 1 Legal AnalysesIn DeJung a decision-maker told the plaintiff that the defendant would not hire him because “they want somebody younger, maybe in their 40's.
Mathieu v. Norrell Corp.
115 Cal.App.4th 1174 (Cal. Ct. App. 2004) Cited 107 times 1 Legal AnalysesHolding that the plaintiff's general employer was not liable under FEHA for harassment and discrimination by an agent of the plaintiff's special employer
Colarossi v. Coty US Inc.
97 Cal.App.4th 1142 (Cal. Ct. App. 2002) Cited 102 times 1 Legal AnalysesIn Colarossi v. Coty US Inc., 97 Cal. App. 4th 1142, 1154 (Cal. Ct. App. 2002), the court found the plaintiff's past positive evaluations relevant only as additional evidence supporting what it deemed to be a "smoking gun" statement from a supervisor that she was going to get revenge on everyone who participated in a sexual harassment investigation against her, and it was "undisputed that [the plaintiff] was named the company's best merchandiser in all the country shortly before" the investigation.
Committee to Save v. Beverly Highlands
92 Cal.App.4th 1247 (Cal. Ct. App. 2001) Cited 72 timesRejecting claim that Bourgerie established that a building restriction is an interest in real property
Section 3294 - When damages recoverable for sake of example and by way of punishment; employer liability for acts of employee; death from homicide
Cal. Civ. Code § 3294 Cited 2,897 times 11 Legal AnalysesStating plaintiff may recover punitive damages "in addition to the actual damages"
Section 1102.5 - Whistleblower protection
Cal. Lab. Code § 1102.5 Cited 1,322 times 41 Legal AnalysesMaking it unlawful for an employer to impose any policy which "prevent an employee from disclosing information to a government or law enforcement agency ... or to another employee who has authority to investigate, discover, or correct the violation or noncompliance"