63 Cited authorities

Tull v. United States
481 U.S. 412 (1987) Cited 1,014 times 19 Legal Analyses
Holding a party had a right to trial by jury in civil claims brought by the government
Teamsters v. Terry
494 U.S. 558 (1990) Cited 853 times 5 Legal Analyses
Holding that a breach of a collective bargaining agreement is most analogous to a "breach of contract claim"
Yanowitz v. L'Oreal USA Inc.
36 Cal.4th 1028 (Cal. 2005) Cited 1,529 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."
Dyna-Med, Inc. v. Fair Employment Housing Com
43 Cal.3d 1379 (Cal. 1987) Cited 888 times
Holding that the statute did not extend to cover remedies that were “different in kind from the enumerated remedies,” because “ more reasonable reading of the phrase ‘including, but not limited to,’ ... permitting only additional corrective remedies comports with the statutory construction doctrines of ejusdem generis, expressio unius est exclusio alterius and noscitur a sociis.”
Tameny v. Atlantic Richfield Co.
27 Cal.3d 167 (Cal. 1980) Cited 834 times 6 Legal Analyses
Holding that at-will employees may recover tort damages from employers if they can show they were discharged in contravention of fundamental public policy
Campbell v. Regents of University of California
35 Cal.4th 311 (Cal. 2005) Cited 365 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding generally that "where an administrative remedy is provided by statute, relief must be sought from the administrative body and this remedy exhausted before the courts will act" without explicitly addressing exhaustion before the Labor Commissioner under section 98.7
Church of Scientology v. Wollersheim
42 Cal.App.4th 628 (Cal. Ct. App. 1996) Cited 337 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that matters of public interest "include product liability suits, real estate or investment scams, etc."
Wysinger v. Automobile Club of Southern California
157 Cal.App.4th 413 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007) Cited 223 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that these two statutory sections "involve separate causes of action and proof of different facts"
Agarwal v. Johnson
25 Cal.3d 932 (Cal. 1979) Cited 476 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that Title VII claim was distinct primary right from defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress claims under state law
People v. Leiva
56 Cal.4th 498 (Cal. 2013) Cited 174 times
Holding the tolling provision of section 1203.2, subdivision "to have a latent ambiguity" that could lead to an absurd result
Section 98.7 - Time limitations for complaints
Cal. Lab. Code § 98.7 Cited 116 times 6 Legal Analyses
Stating that "[a]ny person who believes that he or she has been discharged or otherwise discriminated against in violation of any law under the jurisdiction of the Labor Commissioner may file a complaint with the division within six months after the occurrence of the violation"

SHAW v. S.C. (THC-ORANGE COUNTY, INC.)

63 Cited authorities

Holding a party had a right to trial by jury in civil claims brought by the government

Holding that a breach of a collective bargaining agreement is most analogous to a "breach of contract claim"

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 at-will employees may recover tort damages from employers if they can show they were discharged in contravention of fundamental public policy

Holding generally that "where an administrative remedy is provided by statute, relief must be sought from the administrative body and this remedy exhausted before the courts will act" without explicitly addressing exhaustion before the Labor Commissioner under section 98.7

Holding that matters of public interest "include product liability suits, real estate or investment scams, etc."

Holding that these two statutory sections "involve separate causes of action and proof of different facts"

Holding that Title VII claim was distinct primary right from defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress claims under state law

Holding the tolling provision of section 1203.2, subdivision "to have a latent ambiguity" that could lead to an absurd result

Stating that "[a]ny person who believes that he or she has been discharged or otherwise discriminated against in violation of any law under the jurisdiction of the Labor Commissioner may file a complaint with the division within six months after the occurrence of the violation"