Employment Lawyer
in Los Angeles

 

Los Angeles Office: Department of Fair Employment and Housing   National Lawyer's Association American Bar Association  Disability Rights Legal Center - Los Angeles California Labor Federation Resource Links  Association of Trial Lawyers of America Division of Labor Standards Enforcement Los Angeles California Civil Discovery Law California Code of Regulations

Selected Employment Law Cases

Walrath v. Sprinkel (2002) 99 Cal.App.4th 1237, First District Court of Appeals, Division Two.  The essential issue presented in this case was whether an employee who alleged he had been wrongful terminated in retaliation for bringing workplace complaints could, in addition to bringing a retaliation claim against the employer, also bring the same claim against the individual supervisor who committed the employment retaliation. The appellate court answered this question in the affirmative, and overruled the trial court's dismissal of this claim. 

For some recent cases, including employment discrimination cases,  click here to be taken to our archive page.

Yanowitz v. L'Oreal USA, Inc. (2005) 36 Cal.4th 1028, California Supreme Court. In this employment discrimination case, the employer fired a supervisor who refused to terminate subordinate who was not “hot” looking enough for the job. The California Supreme Court held that even though the supervisor did not specifically state that she thought the order to fire constituted unlawful discrimination, she could still under these circumstances state a claim for wrongful termination. The court also defined an adverse employment action as requiring a court to use the "materiality" test, a standard that requires an employer's adverse action to materially affect the terms and conditions of employment.

Some Sample Superior Court Lawsuits - Los Angeles

Circuit City Stores, Inc. v. Paul Mantor 417 F.3d 1060 (9th Cir. 2005).  In wrongful termination lawsuit filed by a former employee against Circuit City, the Ninth Circuit found an arbitration agreement with its former employee was invalid because it was procedurally and substantively unconscionable since the former employee did not have a meaningful opportunity to negotiate or reject the terms of the agreement which purported to govern his right to bring any employment law claim against Circuit City.