Do you think it is obvious that an employer should not be held liable for injuries suffered by an employee as a result of running a stop sign outside of work hours? A California Workers’ Compensation judge apparently did not think so. In Esquivel v. WCAB, an employee who worked in San Diego and was receiving regular medical treatments in the San Diego area for an industrial injury decided to travel to Los Angeles some 130 miles away to visit her family. Shortly after leaving ...
A California Court of Appeal has ruled that the "special errand doctrine" may allow an employer to be held liable for personal injuries caused by an employee returning from a business trip.
An employer may be held vicariously liable for the actions of an employee acting within the scope of his or her employment. However, under the "going and coming rule," an employee is not regarded as acting within the scope of employment while going to or coming from the workplace, because the employee ordinarily is not rendering services to the employer while traveling. On the other hand, the "special errand exception" to this rule allows for employer liability where the trip involves ...
In the recent case of McCarther v. Pacific Telesis Group, the California Supreme Court clarified the scope of California Labor Code § 233, California’s “kin care” law. California Labor Code § 233 generally requires any employer that allows its employees to “accrue” sick leave to allow those employees to use a portion of that sick leave to attend to the illness of a child, parent, spouse, or domestic partner. In McCarther, the California Supreme Court clarified that California Labor Code § 233 does not universally apply to all paid sick leave policies, only those policies under which employees “accrue” or “bank” sick days. The Court specifically held that the statue does not a...
In the recent case of McCarther v. Pacific Telesis Group, the California Supreme Court clarified the scope of California Labor Code § 233, California’s “kin care” law. California Labor Code § 233 generally requires any employer that allows its employees to “accrue” sick leave to allow those employees to use a portion of that sick leave to attend to the illness of a child, parent, spouse, or domestic partner. In McCarther, the California Supreme Court clarified that California Labor Code § 233 does not universally apply to all paid sick leave policies, only those policies under which employees “accrue” or “bank” sick days. The Court specifically held that the statue does...
In two companion cases decided today, the California Supreme Court provided clarification on whether cases brought as “representative” actions under California’s Unfair Competition Law (UCL) and Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) must meet class action requirements. In Arias v. Superior Court (Angelo Dairy), the Court held that a plaintiff seeking relief on behalf of others under the UCL must satisfy the requirements for a class action set forth in California Code of Civil Procedure section 382. The Court based its decision on the plain language and voter intent behind Proposition 64, which amended the ...
Last week, in Martinez v. Combs, the California Supreme Court issued an important wage and hour opinion.
The plaintiffs in Martinez were seasonal strawberry pickers. They worked for Isidoro Munoz, who did business as Munoz & Sons. They sued for unpaid minimum wages. Munoz and Sons went bankrupt. The remaining defendants in the lawsuit were merchants who purchased strawberries from Munoz and Sons. The merchants had some limited involvement in the farming process. They regularly sent field representatives to the farm to ascertain the quality of available strawberri...
