Articles Discussing General Workplace Issues in California.

California Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH) Director Phyllis W. Cheng, speaking at the Jackson Lewis LLP-sponsored Association of Corporate Counsel (ACC) Labor and Employment Committee Meeting on Feb. 22, 2011, told the gathering of business lawyers that the agency would continue to pursue high-impact cases of “systemic discrimination” in the workplace as a means of leveraging its resources in a time of government austerity.

In a case brought by insurance agents, the California appeals court has ruled that an employer may not unilaterally eliminate certain obligations to employees contained in a policy that did not have an indefinite duration. McCaskey v. California State Auto. Ass’n, No. H032186 (Cal. Ct. App. Oct. 29, 2010). Reversing summary judgment for the employer, the Court held that a triable issue of fact existed regarding the duration of the policy and allowed the case to proceed to trial.

An employer’s defamation lawsuit against protesters who wrongly accused it of racially motivated firings could proceed, the California Court of Appeal has ruled in an unpublished opinion. Overhill Farms Inc. v. Lopez, No. G042984 (Cal. Ct. App. Nov. 15, 2010). Affirming the denial of the protestors’ motion to dismiss the employer’s complaint, the Court rejected their argument that the accusations were a form of protected expressions of opinion. Instead, the Court found the protestors’ statements were factual assertions that the employer could challenge. The Court further ruled that Section 425.16 of the California Civil Code, commonly known as the “anti-SLAPP” law, did not preclude the employer’s defamation claim.

Employers in California may be at risk for significant penalties under California’s requirement that employees be provided with “suitable seating,” under a ruling of a state appeals court in Bright v. 99¢ Only Stores, No. B220016 (Cal. Ct. App. Nov. 12, 2010). The case was brought under state Industrial Welfare Commission (“IWC”) Wage Order No. 7-2001(14), specifying the requirement, and the Labor Code’s Private Attorneys General Act (“PAGA”), which permits aggrieved employees to sue for civil penalties for a violation of the state Labor Code.

Showing continued hostility toward employee arbitration agreements, the California Court of Appeal has struck down as unconscionable an arbitration agreement because the employer failed to provide the high-level employee a copy of the arbitration rules referenced in the agreement.