38 Cited authorities

  1. Guz v. Bechtel National, Inc.

    24 Cal.4th 317 (Cal. 2000)   Cited 2,323 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding summary judgment appropriate for defendant on age discrimination claim where plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue that defendant's proffered reasons were pretext
  2. Armendariz v. Found. Health Psychcare Servs., Inc.

    24 Cal.4th 83 (Cal. 2000)   Cited 1,321 times   42 Legal Analyses
    Holding unilateral arbitration provision substantively unconscionable
  3. Yanowitz v. L'Oreal USA, Inc.

    36 Cal.4th 1028 (Cal. 2005)   Cited 1,090 times   10 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."
  4. Brian Reid v. Google

    50 Cal.4th 512 (Cal. 2010)   Cited 844 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 661 times   80 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. Murphy v. Kenneth Cole Protc

    40 Cal.4th 1094 (Cal. 2007)   Cited 430 times   12 Legal Analyses
    Holding that California Labor Code claims have a three-year statute of limitations
  7. Arias v. Superior Court

    46 Cal.4th 969 (Cal. 2009)   Cited 399 times   10 Legal Analyses
    Holding that proof of a Labor Code violation is a prerequisite to recovery of PAGA penalties
  8. Martinez v. Combs

    49 Cal.4th 35 (Cal. 2010)   Cited 364 times   43 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"
  9. Rutherford Food Corp. v. McComb

    331 U.S. 722 (1947)   Cited 755 times   18 Legal Analyses
    Holding the FLSA contains "no definition that solves problems as to the limits of the employer-employee relationship under the Act"
  10. Miller v. Department of Corrections

    36 Cal.4th 446 (Cal. 2005)   Cited 401 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
  11. Section 203 - Definitions

    29 U.S.C. § 203   Cited 5,590 times   253 Legal Analyses
    Defining "enterprise engaged in commerce or in the production of goods for commerce" to require the enterprise to have "annual gross volume of sales made or business done . . . not less than $500,000"
  12. Section 2802 - Indemnification for necessary expenditures and losses incurred in direct consequence of discharge of duties

    Cal. Lab. Code § 2802   Cited 608 times   99 Legal Analyses
    Providing employer "shall indemnify his or her employee for all necessary expenditures or losses incurred by the employee in direct consequence of the discharge of his or her duties"
  13. Section 11090 - Order Regulating Wages, Hours, and Working Conditions in the Transportation Industry

    Cal. Code Regs. tit. 8 § 11090   Cited 157 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Providing employee "shall not be employed more than eight hours in any workday or more than 40 hours in any workweek unless" employee is paid overtime
  14. Rule 8.520 - Briefs by parties and amici curiae; judicial notice

    Cal. R. 8.520   Cited 1,535 times

    (a)Parties' briefs; time to file (1) Within 30 days after the Supreme Court files the order of review, the petitioner must serve and file in that court either an opening brief on the merits or the brief it filed in the Court of Appeal. (2) Within 30 days after the petitioner files its brief or the time to do so expires, the opposing party must serve and file either an answer brief on the merits or the brief it filed in the Court of Appeal. (3) The petitioner may file a reply brief on the merits or