Cases Pending Before the California Supreme Court

• Jurisdiction: California,United States
• Author: By Phyllis W. Cheng
• Publication year: 2021
• Citation: Vol. 35 No. 3

CASES PENDING BEFORE THE CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT

By Phyllis W. Cheng

Phyllis W. Cheng is a mediator at ADR Services, Inc., and is on the mediation panels for the California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, and U.S. District Court, Central District of California. She is Managing Editor of this publication and prepares the Labor & Employment Case Law Alert, a free "electronic alert service" on new cases for Section members. To subscribe online at http://www.calbar.ca.gov, log onto "My State Bar Profile" and follow the instructions under "Change My E-mail Addresses and List Subscriptions."

DISCRIMINATION / HARASSMENT / RETALIATION

Bailey v. San Francisco District Attorney's Office, nonpublished opinion, 2020 WL 5542657 (2020), review granted (Dec. 30, 2020); S265223/A153520

Petition for review after affirmance of judgment. Did the Court of Appeal properly affirm summary judgment in favor of defendants on plaintiff's claims of hostile work environment based on race, retaliation, and failure to prevent discrimination, harassment and retaliation? Answer brief due.

Bonni v. St. Joseph Health Sys., 13 Cal. App. 5th 851 (2017), review granted, 224 Cal. Rptr. 3d 684 (Nov. 1, 2017); S244148/G052367

Petition for review after reversal granting anti-SLAPP motion. Further action in this matter deferred pending consideration and disposition of a related issue in Wilson v. Cable News Network, Inc. S239686 (decided July 22, 2019; 7 Cal. 5th 871), or pending further order of the court. Submission of additional briefing, pursuant to Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.520, is deferred pending further order of the court. Fully briefed.

Ducksworth v. Tri-Modal Distrib. Servs., 47 Cal. App. 5th 532 (2020), review granted, 267 Cal. Rptr. 3d 203 (August 12, 2020); S262699/B294872

Petition for review after affirmance of judgment. (1) In a cause of action alleging quid pro quo sexual harassment resulting in a failure to promote in violation of the Fair Employment and Housing Act, did the statute of limitations to file an administrative complaint with the Department of Fair Employment and Housing begin to run when the successful candidate was offered and accepted the position, or when that promotion later took effect, if there is no evidence that the plaintiff was aware of the promotion on the earlier date? (2) Was it proper for the Court of Appeal to award costs on appeal under rule 8.278 of the California Rules of Court against an unsuccessful FEHA claimant in the absence of a finding that the underlying claims were objectively frivolous? Fully briefed.

Lawson v. PPG Architectural Finishes, Inc., 982 F.3d 752 (9th Cir. 2020); S266001/9th Cir. No. 19-55802

Request under California Rules of Court rule 8.548 that this court decide a question of California law presented in a matter pending in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Does the evidentiary standard set forth in Labor Code section 1102.6 replace the...