DATELINE: California—where apparently $100 million verdicts are becoming so common that they barely qualify as news anymore.
As we have previously reported, California juries continue to hand down “nuclear” and even “thermonuclear” employment verdicts at an
We invite you to review our newly-posted, May 2026 California Employment Law Notes, a comprehensive review of the latest and most significant developments in California employment law. The highlights include:
Thrower v. Academy Mortg. Corp., 172 F.4th 703 (9th Cir. 2026)
Gwen Thrower was awarded attorneys’ fees, expenses, and costs in her False Claims Act action against Academy Mortgage, her former employer. After the district court approved the settlement in
Martinez v. Sierra Lifestar, Inc., 119 Cal. App. 5th 1303 (2026)
Adam Martinez filed this putative class action against Sierra Lifestar, alleging the employer improperly excluded bonuses when calculating employees’ regular rate of pay for purposes of overtime. The trial
Santana v. Studebaker Health Care Ctr., LLC, 120 Cal. App. 5th 1 (2026)
When J. Ascencion Santana was hired by Studebaker Health Care Center, he signed a series of documents, including three that were “arbitration related.” In response to Santana’s
O’Dell v. Aya Healthcare Servs., Inc., 171 F.4th 1173 (9th Cir. 2026)
This case arose from unpaid wage claims brought by former employees of Aya Healthcare, a travel‑nursing agency. The district court initially compelled four cases to individual arbitrations without
Walton v. Victor Valley Cmty. Coll. Dist., 119 Cal. App. 5th 1164 (2026)
Jessie Walton sued her employer for sexual harassment‑related claims. The trial court excluded her attorney’s declaration filed in opposition to the employer’s summary judgment motion for a
Guardian Storage Centers, LLC v. Simpson, 119 Cal. App. 5th 509 (2026)
After terminating the employment of Julie Simpson (Guardian’s COO), Guardian’s CEO/owner sued Simpson for a variety of claims, including breach of contract, interference with prospective economic advantage, and
Williams v. Legacy Health, 2026 WL 1239760 (9th Cir. 2026)
Employees of Legacy Health were denied religious exemptions from the employer’s COVID‑19 vaccination policy based on the undue hardship the exemptions would have caused the employer’s business. Granting the employees’
Husband v. Target Corp., 2026 WL 1430244 (Cal. Ct. App. 2026)
Daniel Husband worked as a fulfillment expert for Target Corp. Husband’s employment was terminated for violations of Target’s workplace violence policy following a series of “threats of violence against
