This year, lawmakers and their plaintiff’s bar buddies asked Governor Jerry Brown to recast awards in so-called mixed-motive discrimination cases. Brown vetoed Senate Bill 655, leaving in place the State’s high court ruling in Harris v. City of Santa Monica in February 2013. In that 6-0 decision, Brown’s appointee Liu said a workplace firing based both on discrimination and legitimate reasons can trigger attorney fees and declaratory or injunctive relief for a plaintiff but not damages, back pay or reinstatement.
If you’ve attended any of our seminars revolving around wage and hour issues over the past year, you will undoubtedly remember our discussions of Harris v. Superior Court (Liberty Mutual), and the so-called “administrative/production worker dichotomy.” You may also remember an earlier post discussing the California Supreme Court’s ruling last January (which can be found here – https://www.thelelawblog.com/2012/01/articles/wage-and-hour/misclassfied-as-a-matter-of-law-not-so-fast-say-the-supremes/).
The California Supreme Court recently addressed whether insurance claims adjusters qualify for the administrative exemption under California law. (Harris v. Superior Court (Liberty Mutual Insurance Co.).) The Court’s decision in late December 2011, focused on the issue of the “administrative/production worker dichotomy.” Here the Court was looking at whether employees who fall on the “production” side can ever qualify for the administrative exemption.
Continue Reading Misclassfied As A Matter of Law?: Not So Fast Say the Supremes!