ZLF CA Employment Law Updates

Click on the links below to access ZLF past client updates on recent California employment cases and verdicts. 

• July 2026   
• Good afternoon everyone, As a personal favor for clients and friends, this edition of ZLF’s awful summaries of recent and ridiculous employment cases and HUGE jury verdicts is going out when many of you are on vacation. For those of you covering the load back at work, buckle up, it’s brutal:

1. $105,000,000 Sexual Harassment & Retaliation Verdict: California juries continue to hand down the insanity. A San Diego jury awarded a former drug counselor $105 million, finding she was terminated for reporting workplace harassment, a hidden camera, and patient safety violations. The award was $35,000,000 in economic damages and ncluding $70 million in punitive damages. (Giaquinta v San Diego Health Alliance, SDSC Case No. 37-2024-00002653-CU-WT-CTL (5/12/26) (Seems kinda high.)
2. $83,000,000 Discrimination and Harassment Verdict Reduced: A Los Angeles Superior Court judge struck down an $83 million punitive damages age discrimination/harassment verdict, leaving the Plaintiff with “only” $20,000,000 for past and future emotional distress damages. The court found that the 4:1 ration of punitive damages to emotional distress damages as “grossly excessive,” particularly since there was no evidence of physical abuse or trauma, and because the employer quickly investigated and the employee quickly found other employment. (Slagel v Liberty Mutual, LASC Case No. BC648246) (Not bad for someone who immediately found another job and apparently suffered no actual monetary damages.)
3. $52,400,000 Whistleblower Retaliation Verdict A Los Angeles jury (surprising) awarded $52 million to five former drivers and yard personnel alleging retaliation for reporting workplace safety and food-handling issues. practices, and subsequent hostile treatment that caused them to quit or be fired. The employer alleged the terminations were based on the poor performance, misconduct, sleeping on the job, smoking while handling food, and theft of company time. The jury did not seem impressed with the employer’s defense.(Williams et al. v. Sysco Riverside, Inc., RCSC Case No. 20STCV18692) (There’s probably a reason that Plaintiffs’ attorney moved this “Sysco Riverside”      case to LA Superior.)
4. $27,500,000 Constructive Discharge Verdict: A Los Angeles jury awarded $27,500,000 to a former nurse for alleged PTSD and other psychological problems she suffered alleging she was constructively discharged from her job.  She had been called to an emergency at the hospital’s parking structure after a woman jumped from the eighth floor to the ground and died, and later learned that a man also had jumped to his death from the same structure six years earlier. She then “advocated for stronger safety measures,” but alleged she was subjected to “unusually strong resistance.”  She took a medical leave of absence from the hospital for severe psychological problems in part related to treating the suicide victim and also from the stress of “nothing being done to make the structure safer.”  She alleges she was then replaced her and informed her position was no longer available to from medical leave. (Valla v Dignity Health/St. Marys, LA County Case No. 20STCV06767)
5. $4,300,000 Wage/Hour Misclassification Award: The California Labor Commissioner’s Office found that Hart Placement Agency misclassified 144 caregivers working in private homes throughout Los Angeles as independent contractors and awarded $4,266,450 directly to affected workers and that investigator. (CA Dept. of Industrial Relations, 4/23/26)
6. $1,377,000 Harassment/Discrimination Verdict + Fees: Although it now seems like pocket change,  a Los Angeles jury (of course) found that a 60-year old woman who was harassed and discriminated against for reporting religious discrimination at work, and then wrongly termination. The employer alleged she was disciplined for poor performance and terminated for insubordination. Once again, the jury was not convinced and found for the employee on all causes of action at trial, including Retaliation, Failure to Prevent Retaliation, Disability Discrimination, Failure to Prevent Disability Discrimination and Violation of the California Family Rights Act. The court later awarded Plaintiff’s attorneys’ fees for an additional $613,000. (Mayo v. Community Development Commission of the County of Los Angeles, LASC Case No. BC486184)
7. The AI Problem Continues: A court against sanctioned attorney’s for submitting AI generated briefs which included non-existent citations and misstatements of law. (Quinteros v Harbor Distributing, 6/11/26) sanctioned for non-existent cites and misstatements. (2026) 199 Cal.App.4th199 (6/11/26) Let’s take a breather and give a few to the employers:
8. $43,000,000 Wage/Hour Verdict Reversed: A CA Court of Appeal reversed “an exceeding rare beast” of a wage/hour case that want to trial 19 years ago and the jury      awarded $43,000,000, now valued at $60,000,000 after 19 years of interest.      The Court found numerous errors and misinterpretations of during trial and      ordered the class decertified and remanded back to the trial court. (Cortina      v North American Title, Fresno SC Case No. F085389) (5/29/26) (Wow!)
9. Employers Prevail in Refusal to Accommodate COVID-19 Cases: As many as 17 employers defeated lawsuits arising refusals to accommodate employee’s COVID-19 requests for accommodations. In Petersen, the Ninth Circuit held that an employer could not accommodate firefighters’ COVID-19 vaccine exemption requests without undue hardship because allowing unvaccinated firefighters to work, even if taking precautions, increase risk of having essential workers on sick leave. In Sexton, Apple conditionally offered Sexton a role in a new television series, contingent on him being fully vaccinated for COVID-19. Sexton refused on medical grounds and Apple      rejected the exemption request on the grounds concluding that an unvaccinated actor could not safely be accommodated. The Court dismissed Sexton’s claims and further held that Apple’s decision not to cast Sexton was  “protected expressive conduct” under the First Amendment, awarding Apple’s fees. (Petersen v. Snohomish Regional Fire & Rescue, Sexton v. Apple Studios LLC, Allos v. Poway Unified School District) (The health and safety precaution defense appears much more successful than the “it was due to poor performance defense.)
10. Bipolar Discrimination Case Dismissed:  A California Court of Appeal dismissed Plaintiff’s alleged bipolar disorder discrimination case finding that Target established it was not aware of Plaintiff’s alleged disorder. (Husband v Target (CT CT App, Appeal No. B342334, LASC Case No, 22STCV34888) (5/21/26)
11. Wage/Hour Claims Dismissed: U.S. District Court for the Central District of California dismissed a former bus driver’s alleged wage-and-hour violations, retaliation, wrongful termination, and leave-related claims as time-barred or legally deficient. (Tekoma Chaney v. Transdev Services Inc., CA CD Case No. 2:2024-cv-10761 (4/28/26)

• April 2026     
• Happy April 2026 everyone, As we peacefully head into the Spring and Summer seasons, let these recent CA employment decisions and verdicts jolt us back into the reality of the stormy legal waters that California employers face on a daily basis:

1. $9,000,000 Teacher Sexual Misconduct Verdict (Riverside County) A Riverside County jury awarded a woman $9,000,000 on her allegations of grooming and sexual abuse by Rialto Unified School District music instructor Andres "Andy" Luna" against her and other minors 17 years earlier. Plaintiff alleged the School District was aware that Luna had sexually abused other minors and failed to      investigate or remediate. Luna no longer works for the District and was voluntarily dismissed from the case before trial. He maintains his      innocence. (Jane Doe v. Rialto Unified School District, Andres Luna, Riverside County Case No. CIVSB2100860, (4/9/26)
2. $13,000,000 Employment Retaliation Verdict - A federal court jury in central California unanimously awarded Christian Tetrault $13,000,000 after trial on his allegations that he was wrongly terminated after making internal complaints about discrimination. The award was $843,000 in lost wages, $50,000 in emotional distress damages, and $8 million in punitive damages. The Court also awarded Plaintiff's attorneys $4.5 million in attorney's fees after trial. (Tetrault v The Capital Group (Federal US District Court, Central District of California. Case No. 2:23-cv-05144-WLH-E)
3. $128,000,000 Severance Settlement for 4 Former Twitter Executives:  It is reported today that Twitter/Elon Musk settled a $128,000,000 lawsuit for severance by former Twitter executives who were laid off after Musk purchased Twitter (now X) in 2022. The terms of the settlement remain confidential. Last August, Twitter/Musk settled a lawsuit brought by 6000 former Twitter employees alleging $500,000,000 in unpaid severance. (ZLF Note: Since severance pay is voluntary and not mandatory, it would appear these      employees must have had employment contracts for severance and/or stock options.)
4. LA County Failed to Meet & Confer With Police Union Over Contracting Out Services: A hearing officer and superior court judge both initially ruled that LA County did not have a duty to meet and confer with the police union before outsourcing certain police work to a private security contractor. Both had found that the County/Union Agreement to permit "reorganizing" included outsourcing, and the union thus waived its rights to bargain over the County decision to outsource certain private security work.  The Court of Appeal reversed, finding that the parties' agreement to permit "reorganizing" was ambiguous and thus did not constitute a clear and unmistakable waiver of the union's right to bargain the outsourcing. (LA County Professional Peace Officer Assn. v. County of Los Angeles, Appeal No. B338182 (4/10/26)       A parting shot with a win for an employer (but not in California):
5. Jury Verdict for Employer Law Firm Against Attorney's Pregnancy Discrimination Claim: A federal court jury in New York entered a verdict in favor of      Defendant/Employer law firm DLA Piper, finding it did not terminate senior associate attorney Anisha Mehta because she was pregnant and requested maternity leave. The firm prevailed on its defense that she was terminated for poor performance and repeated errors.  (Mehta v DLA Piper, Federal SDNY Case No. 1:23-cv-04757 (4/13/26)   In case that gave jury verdict gave you hope, here is another reminder of the recent "nuclear" employment jury verdicts in CA:
6. $52,000,000 Verdict on Employment Retaliation Claims: A Los Angeles jury awarded $52,000,000 on employees' claims for employment      retaliation/wrongful termination after reporting workplace safety violations and hazardous food safety practices. After awarding      $31,000,000 in damages, the jury then awarded another $21,000,000 in punitive damages. (2/1/26) (Williams v. Sysco Riverside, Los      Angeles County Superior Court Case No. 20STCV18692) ZLF Note: That will be practically nothing after a 5-way split, fees, court costs, and taxes. This follows numerous 2025 CA employment "nuclear     verdicts" as they are now called:
   1. $103 million wrongful termination/age discrimination verdict;
   2. $32 million disability discrimination/failure to accommodate verdict;
   3. $11 million sexual harassment retaliation verdict;
   4. $11 million failure to accommodate verdict;
   5. $27 million retaliation verdict for reporting safety violations;
   6. $10 million sexual harassment verdict against judge who made  sexual jokes to counsel;
   7. $900 million sexual harassment verdict against billionaire Alkiviades David, following several $10 million sexual harassment scrapes       against him.

• February 2026   

Happy February 2026 everyone, CA employment cases and verdicts continue to be brutal for employers, and I don't want you to miss any:

1. $52,000,000 Whistleblower Retaliation Verdict (Los Angeles of Course) A Los Angeles jury awarded 5 employees $52,000,000 on their claims for employment retaliation/wrongful termination after reporting workplace safety violations and hazardous food safety practices. After awarding $31,000,000 in damages, the jury then awarded another $21,000,000 in punitive damages. (2/1/26) (Williams v. Sysco Riverside, Los Angeles County Superior Court Case No. 20STCV18692) ZLF Note: That will be practically nothing after a 5-way split, fees, court costs, and taxes. This follows numerous 2025 CA employment "nuclear verdicts" as they are now called:
2. $103 million wrongful termination/age discrimination verdict;
3. $32 million disability discrimination/failure to accommodate verdict;
4. $11 million sexual harassment retaliation verdict;
5. $11 million failure to accommodate verdict;
6. $27 million retaliation verdict for reporting safety violations;
7. $10 million sexual harassment verdict against judge who made sexual jokes to counsel;
8. Oh, and the $900 million sexual harassment verdict against billionaire Alkiviades David, following several $10 million sexual harassment scrapes against him.
9. $3,000,000 Failure to Shave Verdict: A Los Angeles jury awarded a paltry $3,000,000 in past and future lost wages to a school safety officer alleging constructive discharge for failure to reasonably accommodate his shoulder injury, cutting his medical leave short, and      terminating him before he could recuperate. Plaintiff alleged his employer was really retaliating against him for a prior accommodation dispute over his medical exemption from LAUSD's shaving policy. The jury agreed. (Jones v. LA Unified, Los Angeles County Superior Court Case. No. 20STCV43019)
10. Buh Bye, Too Late. Employment Case Dismissed: The California Court of Appeal affirmed dismissal of Plaintiff's employment discrimination and retaliation case for not having brought it to trial within the 5-year deadline. The Court further rejected Plaintiff's argument that Defendant Cal State had stipulated to the trial date beyond the 5 year deadline (sneaky). (Randolph v. Trustees of Cal      State Univ. CA Ct. App.3rd Dist, Appeal No. C102901 (1/16/26) (ZLF Note: Affirming the well established principles that      procrastination and sneaky tactics pay off in CA employment litigation.)
11. And, Just Because We Love Dogs: The CA Court of appeal affirmed a 2023 Fresno County jury award of $800,000 to Plaintiffs after an deputy sheriff shot and killed their dog Scooby during a search of their home. Police alleged they shot Plaintiff/homeowners' dog because it attacked their police dog first. Plaintiffs alleged that police entered their home without a warrant and that their dog was unjustifiably shot and killed. It is anticipated that at least another $1,000,000 will be awarded for Plaintiff's attorney's fees and court and appeal costs. (Gonzalez & Santiago v Fresno County and Fresno County Sheriff, Fresno County Superior Court Case No. 18CACG03672) ZLF Note: Don't go to trial on a case where your client killed a dog.)

• November 2025    

Happy November Monday afternoon everyone, A few more short soul-crushing employment verdicts and rulings from ZLF to end your day:

1. Discrimination: It’s Not Just for Minorities Any More: In case you missed it, in a 9-0 ruling, the United States Supreme Court ruled that federal anti-discrimination law applies equally to ALL individuals, and not just those in minority groups. In this case, a heterosexual female alleged that she and other heterosexuals had been passed over for promotions in favor of gay employees. The lower Sixth  Circuit Court of Appeal had ruled Plaintiff had to prove specific “background circumstances” evidencing that her employer had discriminated against majority groups, a burden not imposed on minority Plaintiffs. The US Supreme Court unanimously reversed and eliminated this extra      evidentiary hurdle in majority status employment discrimination cases. (Aames v Ohio Department of Youth Services (605 U.S. __, June 5, 2025) (Note: While not good news for employers, it does seem a tad askew that courts had previously applied anti-discrimination law unequally.)
2. Bad News on the Labor Front for CA Employers: CA Labor Assembly Bill (AB) 288 expands and reaffirms worker rights and, wait for it… gives California’s Public Employment Relations Board (PERB) authority in private employment matters if the worker protections are not available under National Labor Relations Act, or the NLRB is delayed. (Note: No way to put a smiley employer face on this one.)
3. Another Employer Burden Taking Effect Soon (Employee Notices): Effective 1/1/26, CA’s Workplace Know Your Rights Act (SB      294) will require California employers to provide every current employee with written notice of certain workers' rights on or before February 1, 2026, and every year after. Among other things, the notice must include  information about workers' compensation benefits, notice of inspections conducted by an immigration agency, the right to organize a union or engage in concerted activity in the workplace. 
4. $8.7 Million Sexual Harassment Verdict: An Orange County jury found severely in favor of a UCI student alleging sexual harassment by a professor. The professor alleged the relationship was platonic. Plaintiff produced over 1000 pages of intimate text messages sent to her by her professor. (Crary v. The Regents of the University of California OCSC No. 30-2021-01216976-CU-WT-CJC (6/13/25) (Note: As always, ZLF recommends employers and managers to ease up on the emails and text messages, particularly inappropriate ones to subordinate employees.)
5. $9.3 Million Medical Leave Retaliation Verdict: A San Diego jury awarded an occupational therapist over $9 million after finding she was unlawfully terminated for taking California Family Rights Act leave to care for her son. The jury awarded $1.5 million for emotional distress damages and $7.8 million in punitive damages as the jury found Defendant’s conduct particularly egregious. The defense alleged Plaintiff had refused to work a required full-time schedule before she took her leave and found another job only 4 months later. The jury apparently vigorously believed the Plaintiff. (Buron v. Occupational Health Centers of California SDSC Case No. 37-2021-00026852-CU-WT-CTL) Here’s a good past parting shot (April 2025) to cheer you up:
6. $10,000,000 Sexual Harassment Verdict Reversed: The California Court of Appeal reversed a $10 million sexual harassment verdict based on the trial court’s evidentiary rulings, including admitting a 20-year old newspaper article about a Defendant’s prior sexual assault conviction, and, because the Judge made “bizarre” racial comments and sexual jokes to Defendant’s Black female attorney, including repeating a joke about female secretaries doing a better job providing sexual favors than typing. (Odom v. Los Angeles County College District (2025) 110 Cal.App.5th 470)