§Why CasetextPricing

DYNAMEX OPERATIONS WEST v. S.C.

Amicus Curiae Brief of California Employment Law Council and Employers Group, Supplemental Brief

41 Cited authorities

  1. Guz v. Bechtel National, Inc.

    24 Cal.4th 317 (Cal. 2000)   Cited 3,248 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that an implied covenant "cannot be endowed with an existence independent of its contractual underpinnings. It cannot impose substantive duties or limits on the contracting parties beyond those incorporated in the specific terms of their agreement."

  2. Yanowitz v. L'Oreal USA Inc.

    36 Cal.4th 1028 (Cal. 2005)   Cited 1,532 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."

  3. Armendariz v. Foundation Health Psychcare Services, Inc.

    24 Cal.4th 83 (Cal. 2000)   Cited 1,744 times   45 Legal Analyses
    Holding unilateral arbitration provision substantively unconscionable

  4. Reid v. Google, Inc.

    50 Cal.4th 512 (Cal. 2010)   Cited 1,087 times   16 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a high degree of foreseeability is required to impose a duty to hire security guards and that “the requisite degree of foreseeability rarely, if ever, can be proven in the absence of prior similar incidents of violent crime on the landowner's premises”

  5. Brinker Rest. Corp. v. Superior Court of San Diego Cnty.

    53 Cal.4th 1004 (Cal. 2012)   Cited 800 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"

  6. Arias v. Superior Court (Angelo Dairy)

    46 Cal.4th 969 (Cal. 2009)   Cited 582 times   13 Legal Analyses
    Holding that proof of a Labor Code violation is a prerequisite to recovery of PAGA penalties

  7. Martinez v. Combs

    49 Cal.4th 35 (Cal. 2010)   Cited 479 times   45 Legal Analyses
    Holding that California's wage and hour laws do not impose liability on "individual corporate agents acting within the scope of their agency"

  8. Miller v. Department of Corrections

    36 Cal.4th 446 (Cal. 2005)   Cited 550 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Holding that there was a triable issue of fact as to whether the plaintiffs could maintain a hostile work environment claim on the ground that widespread favoritism created an atmosphere demeaning to women, where a prison warden was engaged in sexual relationships with three female employees with whom he frequently engaged in public displays of sexual conduct; and who, because of their relationship with the warden, were granted employment benefits not available to others; permitted to harass the employees without repercussions; and provided advancement opportunities based upon sexual favors rather than merit

  9. Murphy v. Kenneth Cole Productions Inc.

    40 Cal.4th 1094 (Cal. 2007)   Cited 514 times   19 Legal Analyses
    Holding that California Labor Code claims have a three-year statute of limitations

  10. Sav-On Drug Stores, Inc. v. Superior Court

    34 Cal.4th 319 (Cal. 2004)   Cited 514 times   10 Legal Analyses
    Holding that common questions predominated in overtime case brought by chain store managers

  11. Section 11340 - Legislative intent

    Cal. Gov. Code § 11340   Cited 408 times   5 Legal Analyses

    The Legislature finds and declares as follows: (a) There has been an unprecedented growth in the number of administrative regulations in recent years. (b) The language of many regulations is frequently unclear and unnecessarily complex, even when the complicated and technical nature of the subject matter is taken into account. The language is often confusing to the persons who must comply with the regulations. (c) Substantial time and public funds have been spent in adopting regulations, the necessity

  12. Section 98.2 - Review

    Cal. Lab. Code § 98.2   Cited 209 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Providing that "[t]he Labor Commissioner shall file, within 10 days of the order becoming final pursuant to subdivision (d), a certified copy of the final order with the clerk of the superior court of the appropriate county unless a settlement has been reached by the parties and approved by the Labor Commissioner"

  13. Rule 8.212 - Service and filing of briefs

    Cal. R. 8.212   Cited 28 times

    (a)Time to file (1) An appellant must serve and file its opening brief within: (A) 40 days after the record-or the reporter's transcript, after a rule 8.124 election-is filed in the reviewing court; or (B) 70 days after the filing of a rule 8.124 election, if the appeal proceeds without a reporter's transcript. (2) A respondent must serve and file its brief within 30 days after the appellant files its opening brief. (3) An appellant must serve and file its reply brief, if any, within 20 days after

  14. Rule 8.504 - Form and contents of petition, answer, and reply

    Cal. R. 8.504   Cited 21 times

    (a)In general Except as provided in this rule, a petition for review, answer, and reply must comply with the relevant provisions of rule 8.204. (Subd (a) amended effective January 1, 2007.) (b) Contents of a petition (1) The body of the petition must begin with a concise, nonargumentative statement of the issues presented for review, framing them in terms of the facts of the case but without unnecessary detail. (2) The petition must explain how the case presents a ground for review under rule 8.500(b)