- Retailer to Pay $1.3M for California Consumer Privacy Act Violationson October 9, 2025 at 4:31 PM
The California Privacy Protection Agency (CPPA) Board has issued a decision based upon the Stipulation of the employer requiring Tractor Supply Company, the nation’s largest rural lifestyle retailer with more than 2,500 stores in 49 states, to change its business practices and pay a $1,350,000 fine to resolve claims that the company violated the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA). The fine is the largest in the CPPA’s history, and the decision is the first to address the importance of CCPA privacy notices and privacy rights of job applicants.
Tractor Supply Company is, a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business at 5401 Virginia Way, Brentwood, TN 37027. It is a for-profit corporation that describes itself as the nation’s largest rural lifestyle retailer. Tractor Supply has a large presence in California as farmers, ranchers, and agricultural workers form an important component of the state’s fabric and economy. Tractor Supply operates more than 85 brick-and-mortar stores across California, as well as a website and mobile application for online purchases.
In 2018, the Legislature took action to protect Californians’ privacy in the digital age by enacting the California Consumer Privacy Act (“CCPA”), Civ. Code §§ 1798.100–1798.199.100. The CCPA gives consumers certain rights with regard to their personal information, such as the right to know what personal information businesses collect from them, the right to stop businesses from selling their personal information, and the right to have it deleted.
In November 2020, California voters approved Proposition 24 with the aim of giving consumers more control over how businesses collect, use, share, and profit from their personal information. Prop. 24 strengthened the CCPA and established the Agency as an “independent watchdog” to “vigorously enforce the law,” recognizing that the unauthorized use and sharing of personal information creates a “heightened risk of harm” for consumers. Prop. 24, § 3(L) (2020).
The CPPA opened an investigation into Tractor Supply’s privacy practices after receiving a complaint from a consumer in Placerville, California. Tractor Supply produced thousands of pages of documents, answered the Agency’s questions, met with the Agency numerous times, and has remediated most of the issues described in the Stipulation. According to the Board’s decision, Tractor Supply violated Californians’ privacy rights by:
- - Failing to maintain a privacy policy that notified consumers of their rights;
- - Failing to notify California job applicants of their privacy rights and how to exercise them;
- - Failing to provide consumers with an effective mechanism to opt-out of the selling and sharing of their personal information, including through opt-out preference signals such as Global Privacy Control; and
- - Disclosing personal information to other companies without entering into contracts that contain privacy protections.
To resolve the allegations, Tractor Supply agreed to pay $1,350,000, implement broad remedial measures, such as scanning its digital properties to inventory tracking technologies, and require a corporate officer or director to certify compliance annually for the next four years.
The Board’s decision underscores the need for businesses to review their privacy notices and opt-out mechanisms, as well as the need for businesses to protect the privacy of their job applicants, not just their customers. Since 2023, job applicants, employees, and independent contractors have been afforded greater privacy protections.
The Board’s decision follows on the heels of a separate court case brought against Tractor Supply last month to enforce an investigative subpoena. With today's resolution, the CPPA’s Enforcement Division will be discontinuing that litigation.
The CPPA’s Recent Enforcement Actions to Protect Californians The CPPA continues to actively enforce California's cutting-edge privacy laws. Recent actions include:
- - Issuing a decision requiring clothing retailer Todd Snyder to change its business practices and pay a $345,178 fine for CCPA violations.
- - Issuing a decision requiring American Honda Motor Co. to change its business practices and pay a $632,500 fine for CCPA violations.
- - Securing a settlement agreement requiring data broker Background Alert — which promoted its ability to dig up “scary” amounts of information about people — to shut down or pay a steep fine.
- - Launching the bipartisan Consortium of Privacy Regulators to collaborate with states across the country to implement and enforce privacy laws nationwide.
- - Partnering with the data protection authorities in Korea, France, and the United Kingdom to share information and advance privacy protections for Californians.
In addition, the agency has secured more than half a dozen successful enforcement actions against unregistered data brokers following an investigative sweep launched late last year to assess compliance with the Delete Act.
The California Delete Act (SB 362) is a state law designed to enhance data privacy for California residents. It establishes a one-click mechanism for consumers to request that registered data brokers delete their personal information. The Act requires data brokers to register with the California Privacy Protection Agency, which will enforce compliance. This legislation builds upon previous privacy laws, such as the California Consumer Privacy Act, and aims to create a centralized deletion platform for easier consumer access to their data rights.
- Employer Has No Right to Arbitrate Headless PAGA Actionon October 9, 2025 at 4:31 PM
In February 2018, plaintiff Tricia Galarsa sued her former employer, Dolgen California, LLC (Dollar General), to recover civil penalties under PAGA for various Labor Code violations suffered by her or by other employees. The facts and procedural history set forth in the 2023 published case of Galarsa v Dolgen California, 88 Cal.App.5th 639, 305 Cal.Rptr.3d 15 were not recounted by the Court of Appeal in this 2025 opinion in the same case.
After Galarsa (2023), supra, 88 Cal.App.5th 639, was issued, the California Supreme Court granted Dollar General’s petition for review and deferred briefing pending its decision in Adolph v. Uber Technologies, Inc. (2023) 14 Cal.5th 1104 (Adolph). In September 2023, after Adolph was issued, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition for review. As a result, the clerk of this court issued a remittitur and this matter was returned to the trial court to implement our decision in Galarsa, supra, 88 Cal.App.5th 639.
In Galarsa (2023) the following was defined. “Type A/individual PAGA claim” refers to a PAGA claim seeking a civil penalty based on a Labor Code violation suffered by the plaintiff. (See Galarsa v. Dolgen California, LLC (2023) 88 Cal.App.5th 639, 648 (Galarsa) [“Type A” claim defined].) “Type O/nonindividual PAGA claim” refers to a PAGA claim seeking a civil penalty assessed on a Labor Code violation suffered by an employee other than the plaintiff. (See Galarsa, supra, 88 Cal.App.5th at p. 649 [“Type O” claim defined].)
That decision partially reversed the order denying Dollar General’s motion to compel arbitration and directed the trial court to issue a new order granting the motion to compel as to the Type A/individual PAGA claims. (Galarsa, supra, 88 Cal.App.5th at p. 655.) The denial of arbitration was affirmed as to the Type O/nonindividual PAGA claims and those claims were allowed to be pursued in court. (Ibid.) The Court of Appeal did not address whether the trial court should stay the litigation on the Type O/nonindividual PAGA claims pending the completion of the arbitration.
In October 2024, Dollar General filed a renewed motion to compel arbitration and to stay proceedings on the Type O/nonindividual PAGA claims. On November 22, 2024, the trial court held a hearing on the pending motion to compel arbitration and the demurrer. The court determined arbitration was not a mandatory first step for a plaintiff seeking to pursue only Type O/nonindividual PAGA claims. As a result, it denied the motion to compel arbitration. It also overruled the demurrer. A few days later, Dollar General filed a notice of appeal from the order denying its motion to compel arbitration.
The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court in its 2025 published decision in Galarsa (II) v. Dolgen California -F089004 (October 2025).
"In this consolidated appeal and writ proceeding, we address two questions involving the Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (PAGA; Lab. Code,1 § 2698 et seq.). The first question is whether the version of PAGA in effect from mid-2016 to mid-2024 authorized an aggrieved employee to bring a PAGA action that seeks to recover civil penalties imposed for Labor Code violations suffered only by other employees. Such lawsuits are sometimes referred to as “headless” PAGA actions because the plaintiff employee has chosen not to pursue civil penalties for violations he or she suffered personally. (CRST Expedited, Inc. v. Superior Court (2025) 112 Cal.App.5th 872, 882 (CRST Expedited).) We again conclude such PAGA actions were allowed. (Ibid.)"
"The second question arises only if headless PAGA actions were allowed and involves standing to pursue the PAGA action as the representative of the Labor and Workforce Development Agency (LWDA). To have standing, a PAGA plaintiff must be an “aggrieved employee.” (See § 2699, former subd. (c) [definition of aggrieved employee].) The question is whether the plaintiff employee’s status as aggrieved employee is a separate dispute that must be resolved in arbitration before the headless PAGA action proceeds in court."
"This question does not appear to have been decided by a California appellate court since the United States Supreme Court decided Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana (2022) 596 U.S. 639 (Viking River)."
"We conclude the parties’ agreement to arbitrate certain disputes does not encompass the issue of plaintiff’s status as an aggrieved employee because that dispute is one the plaintiff’s principal, Labor and Workforce Development Agency (LWDA), has against the employer."
"We therefore deny the employer’s petition for a writ of mandate challenging the trial court’s order overruling its demurrer to the headless PAGA action and affirm the order denying the employer’s motion to compel arbitration of the standing issue."
- Appellate Court Rejects WCAB View on Pro-Athlete Jurisdiction Lawon October 8, 2025 at 1:59 PM
Wayne Gandy spent 15 years - from 1994 to 2009 - as a professional football player with the National Football League (NFL). He played with the Los Angeles Rams (LA Rams) during the 1994 season, his first with the NFL. He played the next three years with the St. Louis Rams (STL Rams) under the contract he had signed in California with the LA Rams, but he never again played for a California team. He played for the Pittsburgh Steelers (Steelers) from April 1999 to February 2003, the New Orleans Saints (Saints) from March 2003 to April 2006, and finally, petitioner Atlanta Falcons (Falcons) from April 2006 until his retirement in February 2009.
Six years after he retired, Gandy filed a claim in California for workers’ compensation, claiming a cumulative injury to multiple body parts.
In June 2019, Gandy’s claim went to trial on three issues: (1) whether California has jurisdiction over Gandy’s claim; (2) whether jurisdiction should be exercised in light of the choice of law and forum selection clauses in Gandy’s contracts with the Falcons and the Saints (McKinley v. Arizona Cardinals (2013) 78 Cal.Comp.Cases 23); and (3) whether Gandy’s claim against the Falcons was barred by the applicable statutes of limitation.
The workers’ compensation judge (WCJ) who heard Gandy’s claim issued an opinion determining the Falcons were exempted from liability under California workers’ compensation law pursuant to Labor Code section 3600.5, subdivisions (c) and (d). The WCJ’s opinion also determined Gandy was exempted from coverage under the same provisions.
The WCAB issued an opinion and decision after reconsideration, that rescinded the WCJ’s order and found the WCAB had jurisdiction over Gandy’s claim. The WCAB took the position, in line with its previous decision in Hansell v. Arizona Diamondbacks (2022) 87 Cal.Comp.Cases 602, that it has jurisdiction under section 3600.5(a) over any athlete who ever signed a contract in California or with a California team, regardless of subdivisions (c) or (d), and it therefore had jurisdiction over Gandy’s claim because, during his first season in the NFL, he signed a contract with a California team. The WCAB also determined any choice of law/forum selection clause(s) should not be enforced. The WCAB opinion deferred deciding whether Gandy’s claim for compensation was barred by the statute of limitations set forth in section 5405.
After an appeal, the Court of Appeals found that the Falcons are exempted under sections 3600.5(c) and (d). The WCAB’s opinion and decision after reconsideration was therefore annulled and the matter was remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion in the published case of Atlanta Falcons v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Bd. -G064622 (October 2025).
In 2013, the Legislature added sections 3600.5(c) and 3600.5(d) to section 3600.5, to explicitly address a specific subset of workers’ compensation claims: cumulative injury claims by professional athletes. (Stats. 2013, ch. 653, § 1.) Section 3600.5(c) reads, in pertinent part: “With respect to an occupational disease or cumulative injury, a professional athlete who has been hired outside of this state and his or her employer shall be exempted from the provisions of this division while the professional athlete is temporarily within this state doing work for his or her employer if” the employer provides workers’ compensation or its equivalent for the athlete under the laws of another state and that compensation covers the athlete’s employment in this state. (Id., subd. (c)(1).)
In such a case, “the benefits under the workers’ compensation insurance or similar laws of the other state, and other remedies under those laws, shall be the exclusive remedy against the employer for any . . . cumulative injury . . . .” (Id., subd. (c)(2), italics added.) A professional athlete is “temporarily within” California if he or she “performs less than 20 percent of his or her duty days in California” “during the 365 consecutive days immediately preceding” the last day of work for that employer within California. (Id., subd. (c)(3).)
Gandy’s last day of work for the Falcons in California was a November 30, 2008 game against the San Diego Chargers. In the 365 days preceding that date, Gandy’s total duty days included four games and at least 250 practice days. None of the practices and only one of the games was in California - less than 20 percent of Gandy’s duty days during the relevant period. The Falcons are therefore exempt under the terms of section 3600.5(c).
But the Court of Appeal then noted "But that is not the end of the inquiry. As the WCAB recognized, Gandy was, in fact, hired as a professional football player in California (albeit by the LA Rams, not by the Falcons) at one point early in his 15-year NFL career. Therefore, section 3600.5(c) raises a question: what happens when a professional athlete is hired both by California and non-California teams over the course of his or her career and suffers a cumulative injury or occupational disease arising from that career?"
"Section 3600.5(d) provides a clear answer. It specifies that both a professional athlete claiming a cumulative injury and his or her employer are exempted when “all of the professional athlete’s employers in his or her last year of work as a professional athlete are exempt from this division pursuant to subdivision (c) or any other law, unless both the following conditions are satisfied”: (1) “[t]he professional athlete has, over the course of his or her professional athletic career, worked for two or more seasons for a California- based team” or “worked 20 percent or more of his or her duty days either in California or for a California-based team” and (2) the professional athlete has “worked for fewer than seven seasons for any team or teams other than a California-based team or teams.” (§ 3600.5, subd. (d)(1).)"
"In other words, if all the employers in the last year of an athlete’s career are exempt - under section 3600.5(c) or otherwise - the athlete’s career is not governed by California worker’s compensation law unless the athlete satisfies two conditions: (1) he or she spent either two or more seasons or 20 percent of his or her total career working in California or for a California- based team; and (2) he or she spent fewer than seven total seasons working for any non-California team or teams."
"Gandy fails both tests. He was employed for 15 seasons, only one of which was in California with a California based team, and he worked fewer than 20 percent of his duty days in California or for a California-based team. Therefore, section 3600.5(d) exempts both Gandy and the Falcons from California worker’s compensation law."
Looking at section 3600.5, the WCAB opinion found an ambiguity between section 3600.5(a) - which provides coverage for California employees injured while working outside of California - and sections 3600.5(c) and (d), which set forth exemptions from coverage for cumulative injuries suffered by professional athletes. Specifically, the WCAB opinion concluded: “the phrase ‘a professional athlete who has been hired outside of this state’ in section 3600.5, subdivision (c) is ambiguous as applied to a claim like [Gandy’s], where the applicant has California contracts of hire, but not with the particular employer that is asserted to be exempt pursuant to the subdivision.”
After examining the legislative history relating to sections 3600.5(c) and (d), the WCAB determined “the Legislature did not intend for [sections 3600.5(c) and (d)] to apply to athletes who have been hired in California by at least one employer during the cumulative trauma injury period.” The Court of Appeal ruled that the "WCAB’s interpretation is fundamentally flawed."
To this the Court of Appeal said "The overriding problem with the WCAB’s interpretation is that it renders superfluous the plain language of section 3600.5(d), which specifically addresses professional athletes who ultimately suffer a cumulative injury after having been hired by one or more California-based teams at some point in their career."
"Moreover, even if sections 3600.5(a), (c), and (d) were in conflict (and we do not find they are), sections 3600.5(c) and (d), as the later and more specific enactments, would take precedence over the earlier and more general section 3600.5(a)."
- LA Jury Awards $966M to Decedent's Family in J&J Talc Related Caseon October 8, 2025 at 1:59 PM
On October 6, 2025, in Los Angeles Superior Court, a jury found J&J liable for the death of Mae Moore, an 88-year-old California woman who died in 2021 from mesothelioma, a rare cancer strongly linked to asbestos exposure. Moore's family alleged that decades of using J&J's talcum-based baby powder and Shower-to-Shower products exposed her to asbestos-contaminated talcum, which the company knowingly concealed. This verdict marks one of the largest single-plaintiff awards in the ongoing talc litigation.
The verdict awarded $16 million in compensatory damages (for medical expenses, pain and suffering, and loss to the family). $950 million in punitive damages (intended to punish J&J for alleged reckless behavior and deter future misconduct). The total jury verdict was $966 million.
The jury determined that J&J was negligent in manufacturing and marketing its talc products, failed to warn consumers about asbestos risks, and that the products were defective. They rejected J&J's defenses, including claims that its testing showed no asbestos and that scientific consensus supports the safety of its talc.
The case was the latest in a series of individual trials after federal courts rejected J&J's multiple attempts to settle thousands of talc claims via bankruptcy filings (the third rejection occurred earlier in 2025). Mesothelioma cases like this represent a smaller subset of the broader litigation, which primarily involves ovarian cancer claims.
J&J has vehemently denied liability, stating that its talc products "do not contain asbestos and do not cause cancer," citing decades of independent scientific evaluations and regulatory tests. Erik Haas, J&J's Worldwide Vice President of Litigation, called the verdict "egregious and unconstitutional," accusing plaintiffs' lawyers of relying on "junk science."
The company announced it will immediately appeal, potentially arguing that punitive damages exceed constitutional limits (U.S. Supreme Court guidelines suggest they should not exceed 9 times compensatory damages, which could reduce the award to around $144 million). J&J has successfully appealed or won some prior talc cases, including a recent South Carolina mesothelioma trial.
J&J faces over 67,000 lawsuits nationwide alleging its talc products caused cancers like mesothelioma and ovarian cancer due to asbestos contamination. The company discontinued talc-based baby powder in the U.S. in 2020 (switching to cornstarch) and globally in 2023 amid declining sales and scrutiny. Other notable California verdicts include:
- - August 2024: $417 million ($70M compensatory + $347M punitive) to a woman with ovarian cancer (Echeverria case).
- - July 2023: $18.8 million to a man with mesothelioma (Valadez case). 2019: $29.4 million to a woman with mesothelioma (Leavitt case).
- - In 2024, J&J also paid $700 million to settle a separate multi-state investigation into misleading safety claims about talc.
Despite these losses, J&J maintains its products are safe and has won several trials.This litigation highlights ongoing debates in science and law: While some studies link genital talc use to ovarian cancer risk and asbestos in talc to mesothelioma, major health bodies like the FDA and WHO have not conclusively banned cosmetic talc, emphasizing the need for more research.
- Governor Newsom Vetoes the Proposed SIBTF Reform Lawon October 7, 2025 at 4:56 PM
The SIBTF is funded through a payroll surcharge levied on all employers, based on a percentage of the premium paid by insured employers, and based on a percentage of indemnity paid during the most recent year for self-insured employers. In 2023, noting rapid increases in the volume of applications and payments for SIBTF benefits, DIR contracted with RAND to "conduct a comprehensive study of the SIBTF." This report, published in June 2024, identified startling trends concerning the long-term liabilities of the SIBTF and its resulting financial instability.
Insured employers pay roughly $1.4 billion in permanent disability payments. Self-insured employers – private and public – likely add another $500 million to $1 billion. Together, total annual permanent disability payouts under the standard workers’ compensation system likely total about $2 billion. SIBTF, once a relatively small program, now pays more permanent disability payments ($2 billion to $3 billion) than the state’s core workers’ compensation program.
AB 1329 was passed by the legislature with the stated purpose of reforming the SIBTF to reduce costs and the expected deficits in funding. Among other reforms AB1329 would specify that medical-legal evidence in an SIBTF claim proceeding can only be obtained through the QME process, and would require the AD to create and maintain a database of QME physicians with the necessary training and expertise to evaluate SIBTF claims from which to empanel QMEs for these purposes. Unfortunately, Gavin Newsom vetoed the proposed law. His veto letter provided the following reasons to the legislature.
"I am returning Assembly Bill 1329 without my signature. This bill would make assorted changes to the Subsequent Injury Benefit Trust Fund (SIBTF), a World War II-era program created to protect disabled veterans entering the workforce. Proposed changes include incorporating a Qualified Medical Evaluator (QME) process, excluding certain medical conditions from the definition of pre-existing disabilities, and adding a statute of limitations on claims."
"I commend the author for identifying the SIBTF as needing significant reform. Over the past decade, SIBTF has expanded significantly beyond its original purpose. The number of claims has sky rocketed, leading to an unsustainable future for the program. The Deportment of Industrial Relations estimates that, without comprehensive reform, the annual assessment paid by all employers will increase from $372 million in FY 2021-22 to $1.5 billion in FY 2029-30. As the Legislative Analyst's Office noted in a July 2025 report, workers submitting SIBTF claims today could see processing delays of up to ten years unless we take comprehensive action. Notably, other states, facing similar pressures, have chosen to eliminate their programs rather than reform them. This situation is dire and the state must act immediately."
"Unfortunately, AB 1329 does not contain the comprehensive reforms necessary to save SIBTF. While some of the changes, such as the proposed QME process and the statute of limitations, are important, other changes take the program in the wrong direction. For example, including the impact on the "activities of daily living" in the determination of a prior disability contradicts the concept that the prior disability must be labor-disabling. This change would increase SIBTF claims and liabilities."
"To ensure this program continues to serve workers as intended, comprehensive SIBTF reform must be pursued next year. I am directing the Department of Industrial Relations and its Division of Workers' Compensation to develop a proposal for comprehensive reform to include in January's 2026-27 budget proposal. I look forward to working with the Legislature to ensure this program continues to serve California workers."
- Clear and Unmistakable Evidence is Words in the Arbitration Agreementon October 7, 2025 at 4:56 PM
Plaintiff Carlos Villalobos was employed by Simplified Labor Staffing Solutions, Inc., a temporary staffing services company that supplies labor and staffing to its customers. Simplified Staffing placed plaintiff with Maersk Warehouse and Distribution Services, where he worked first as a materials handler and later as a forklift operator. Simplified describes Maersk as “a warehousing and logistics company that warehouses goods in California that originate outside California and processes logistics for customers all over the United States.”
Plaintiff filed a class action alleging multiple wage and hour claims under the Labor Code, and an unfair competition claim, against defendant Maersk, Inc. The first amended complaint identified Maersk, Inc., Damco Distribution Services Inc. (now known as Maersk Warehouse and Distribution Services USA LLC), and Simplified Labor Staffing as plaintiff’s employers.
Plaintiff also filed a separate representative action against Maersk, Inc. for civil penalties under PAGA on behalf of himself and other current and former employees. The two cases were later consolidated.
The parties to the arbitration agreement are plaintiff and Simplified Labor Solutions. The arbitration agreement in this case consists of two separate documents: a May 11, 2020 “Employee Agreement to Arbitrate” (the employee agreement) and a “Notice to Employees About Our Mutual Arbitration Policy” (the arbitration policy), both requiring binding arbitration of all disputes with the company that relate in any way to plaintiff’s employment.
The three defendants filed a joint motion to compel arbitration. The trial court granted defendants’ motion in part and denied it in part. First, the court addressed defendants’ contention that the parties delegated resolution of enforcement issues to the arbitrator. The court found there was not a clear and unmistakable agreement to delegate enforceability issues to the arbitrator, citing cases holding (among other points) that in the employment context, an agreement incorporating by reference an arbitration organization’s standardized rules did not meet the clear and unmistakable test.
The trial court then turned to the substance of plaintiff’s opposition to arbitration, ultimately concluding plaintiff “was among a class of workers engaged in foreign or interstate commerce,” and the FAA did not apply to the agreement; “[t]he California Arbitration Act (CAA) and other provisions of California law apply instead.”
Third, the court found that under Labor Code section 229, if a cause of action seeks to collect due and unpaid wages pursuant to sections 200 through 244, the action may be maintained in court despite an agreement to arbitrate. Thus plaintiff could maintain in court his claim for nonpayment of minimum wages; his other claims (missed meal and rest breaks, overtime, and so on) were outside the purview of section 229.
Fourth, the trial court agreed with plaintiff that Labor Code section 229 also shielded from arbitration his claim for waiting time penalties, to the extent that claim was based on failure to pay minimum wages. (The court observed that “[a]s a practical matter, . . . without first deciding whether Defendants failed to pay [plaintiff] minimum wages (non-arbitrable Count 1), the arbitrator cannot possibly decide whether Defendants ought to be penalized for the failure to timely pay [plaintiff] minimum wages.”)
Fifth, the court concluded that under California law, no part of plaintiff’s PAGA claim was arbitrable, stating that “[s]tate law rules that are preempted by the FAA are nevertheless good law in cases that do not involve the FAA.”
Thus, the court denied defendants’ motion to compel plaintiff to arbitrate his minimum wage claim, his waiting penalties claim to the extent it is based on his minimum wage claim, and the PAGA action. The court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration of plaintiff’s other wage and hour claims and his unfair competition claim (counts 2-6, 7 (in part) & 8). The court denied defendants’ motion to dismiss the non- individual PAGA claims, granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the putative class claims, and granted defendants’ motion to stay proceedings.
The defendants appealed. The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s ruling in its entirety in the published case of Villalobos v. Maersk, Inc. -B333556 (October 2025).
“Under California law, it is presumed the judge will decide arbitrability, unless there is clear and unmistakable evidence the parties intended the arbitrator to decide arbitrability.” (Dennison v. Rosland Capital LLC (2020) 47 Cal.App.5th 204, 209.) This is a well-established principle of arbitration law, applied in both state and federal cases. (E.g., First Options of Chicago, Inc. v. Kaplan (1995) 514 U.S. 938, 944 (First Options) [“Courts should not assume that the parties agreed to arbitrate arbitrability unless there is ‘clea[r] and unmistakabl[e]’ evidence that they did so.”].)
"Here we hold, in the context of a mandatory arbitration agreement between an employer and an hourly worker, that the incorporation of the rules of an arbitration provider – without expressly specifying in the parties’ agreement that under those rules the arbitrator will decide the scope and validity of the arbitration agreement – is not clear and unmistakable evidence of the parties’ intent to have those issues decided by the arbitrator. Absent unusual circumstances, an employer who intends to delegate issues of arbitrability to the arbitrator must express that intent in the arbitration agreement itself. Anything less is not clear and unmistakable evidence that both parties understood and intended that the arbitrator would decide arbitrability questions."
- CDI Files Action Against Tesla For Insurance Business Practiceson October 6, 2025 at 5:07 PM
The California Department of Insurance issued enforcement actions today against Tesla Insurance Services, Inc. and Tesla Insurance Company (Tesla Companies), plus State National Insurance Company (State National), in order to protect consumers after the companies allegedly repeatedly failed in their legal obligations to adequately handle hundreds of California automobile policyholder claims. Tesla Insurance Services, Inc. is an appointed agent for State National, an admitted insurer in California.
Unless these issues are resolved in favor of policyholders beforehand, the companies will be ordered to a hearing before an administrative law judge to determine whether they will be able to maintain their ability to transact insurance business in California as well as face significant monetary penalties.
The actions allege that, despite being repeatedly warned by the Department of Insurance, the Tesla Companies and State National instead chose to abandon their responsibility to consumers and persist with their non-compliant claims-handling practices, placing profits above people and flouting the law with impunity.
After allegedly continuing to receive a significant number of consumer complaints related to the handling of their automobile policyholder claims beginning in 2022, the Department of Insurance repeatedly warned the Tesla Companies and State National of the significant harm to their policyholders -- largely Tesla drivers -- unless immediate corrective actions were taken.
Throughout numerous meetings with, correspondence between, and reports to the Department of Insurance, the companies repeatedly committed to improvements, but allegedly the number of justified consumer complaints and violations continued to mount.
The Department’s accusations are based on the companies’ ongoing systemic failures and willful unfair claims settlement practices including, but not limited to, the following alleged violations:
- - Egregious delays in responding to policyholder claims in all steps of the claims handling process, causing financial harm, out-of-pocket expenses, potential third-party liability exposure, and distress to policyholders
- - Unreasonable denials and delays in fully paying valid claims to consumers
- - Failure to conduct thorough, fair, and objective investigations of claims, thus denying consumers the insurance benefits they expect
- - Failure to advise policyholders of their rights to have their claims denials reviewed by the Department – a major consumer protection in California to make sure insurers are held accountable by their regulator
The companies have 15 days to respond to the Department’s Accusations and Notices.The companies face monetary penalties up to $5,000 for each unlawful, unfair, or deceptive act, or up to $10,000 for each such act determined to be willful.
In approximately the first quarter of 2022, Tesla Insurance Holdings, LLC, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Tesla, Inc., a Delaware Corporation, acquired control of Balboa Insurance Company, including its wholly-owned subsidiaries, Tesla Property & Casualty, Inc. (formerly known as Meritplan Insurance Company) and Tesla General Insurance, Inc. (formerly known as Newport Insurance Company). In approximately the first quarter of 2022, Balboa Insurance Company’s name was changed to Tesla Insurance Company, NAIC number 24813.
As of today (three days after the action was filed), there has not been any public statement, press release, or response from Tesla, Elon Musk, or the Tesla Companies addressing these specific accusations. Searches across news sources, Tesla's investor relations page, and X (formerly Twitter) posts from official Tesla/Musk accounts yielded no results indicating a reply.
- Three Researchers (One in California) Awarded Nobel Prize in Medicineon October 6, 2025 at 5:07 PM
On October 6, 2025, the Nobel Assembly at Karolinska Institutet announced that the 2025 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine has been awarded to three immunologists: Mary E. Brunkow and Fred Ramsdell from the United States, and Shimon Sakaguchi from Japan. The trio shares the prize of 11 million Swedish kronor (approximately $1 million USD) equally for their groundbreaking discoveries on "peripheral immune tolerance" - a mechanism that keeps the immune system from mistakenly attacking the body's own healthy tissues, thereby preventing autoimmune diseases.
- - Mary E. Brunkow (born 1961) is a senior program manager at the Institute for Systems Biology in Seattle, Washington. She earned her Ph.D. from Princeton University and has focused on genetic research related to immune regulation.
- - Fred Ramsdell (born 1960) is a scientific advisor at Sonoma Biotherapeutics in San Francisco, California. He holds a Ph.D. from the University of California, Los Angeles (1987) and has worked extensively on T-cell biology.
- - Shimon Sakaguchi (born 1951) is a Distinguished Professor at the Immunology Frontier Research Center, Osaka University, Japan. He received his M.D. (1976) and Ph.D. (1983) from Kyoto University and is renowned for his work on T-cell suppression.
These researchers, working independently in the 1990s and early 2000s, challenged the long-held scientific consensus that immune tolerance (the ability to ignore self-tissues) occurred only in the thymus during T-cell development - a process known as "central tolerance." Instead, their work revealed a critical "peripheral" layer of control in the rest of the body.
Their contributions center on regulatory T cells (Tregs), a subset of immune cells that act like vigilant "security guards," patrolling the body to suppress overzealous immune responses against harmless or self-antigens. In essence, the laureates showed that without functional Tregs and *Foxp3*, the immune system loses its brakes, leading to chaos. This peripheral tolerance complements central mechanisms, creating a multi-layered defense.
This work has transformed immunology from a descriptive field into one ripe for therapeutic innovation. Autoimmune diseases affect over 50 million people in the U.S. alone, including rheumatoid arthritis, multiple sclerosis, type 1 diabetes, and lupus - conditions where the immune system turns traitor. By elucidating Treg biology, the laureates enabled strategies to "retrain" the immune system:
Broader implications include the following:
- - Autoimmune Treatments: Drugs that boost Treg function (e.g., low-dose IL-2 therapies) are in trials to dampen inflammation without broad immunosuppression.
- - Cancer Immunotherapy: Tregs can sometimes shield tumors from attack; inhibiting them enhances checkpoint inhibitors like PD-1 blockers, improving outcomes in melanoma and lung cancer.
- - Organ Transplants: Treg infusions help prevent rejection by promoting tolerance to foreign tissues, reducing reliance on lifelong drugs.
Several therapies inspired by this research are now in advanced clinical trials, with real-world approvals on the horizon. As the Nobel Committee noted, these insights explain "why not all individuals develop serious autoimmune diseases despite genetic risks," offering hope for personalized medicine. The announcement has sparked widespread excitement in the scientific community, with early reactions highlighting its potential to address unmet needs in chronic diseases.
- WCAB Intends to Sanction Applicant Attorneys for "Fabricated" Citationson October 2, 2025 at 12:51 PM
Jennifer Chase filed an application alleging a continuous trauma injury to multiple orthopedic body parts, sustained from November 30, 2016 through January 10, 2019 for the orthopedic injuries - later amended to include psyche injuries - while employed by defendant as a regional sales manager for Southern Implants of North America.
She sought reconsideration of the Findings & Award (“F&A”) issued on June 20, 2025 by the WCJ who found that she did not sustain a psychiatric injury arising out of and in the course of employment.
The WCAB granted the Petition for Reconsideration and issued a Notice of Intention to impose sanctions of up to $2,500.00 jointly and severally against applicant’s attorneys Ghitterman, Ghitterman & Feld and Anton Diffenderfer (CAL BAR #229171). A final decision on the merits of the petition was deferred pending resolution of the issue of sanctions in the case of Jennifer Chase v Southern Implants of North America -ADJ12865802 (September 2025).
The WCAB noted in its Opinion that with the exception of Hegglin, each of the citations it quoted as having been made by applicant attorneys were " flawed in significant ways, and in two cases, the citations appear to entirely fabricated."
The Opinion went on to specify that "In rough order of egregiousness, the proper citation for the 1975 case Patterson v. WCAB is 53 Cal.App.3d 916; the Petition’s given citation, 40 Cal.App.3d 936, is not a real citation, but corresponds most closely to a completely unrelated criminal case from 1974, People v. Orlosky (1974) 40 Cal.App.3d 935."
"Next, the Petition’s purported citation to Tyner v. WCAB (1998) 63 Cal. Comp. Cases 1744 instead corresponds to Wright v. W.C.A.B, a decision relating to an entirely different issue. It appears that the Petition is attempting to cite to Tyler v. Workers Compensation Appeals Bd. (1997) 62 Cal. Comp. Cases 924."
"Finally, and of greatest concern, the citations to Maislin v. WCAB (2022) 87 Cal. Comp. Cases 765 (writ den.) and Rios v. City of West Sacramento (2013) 2013 Cal.Wrk.Comp. P.D. LEXIS 626 (WCAB panel decision) appear to be entirely fabricated. The cite given in the Petition for Maislin most closely corresponds to McCullar v. SMC Contracting, Inc. (2022) 83 Cal.App.5th 1005 [87 Cal. Comp. Cases 758], an unrelated civil case involving the independent contractor doctrine. Based on our review, no case under the name Maislin has been filed in the California workers’ compensation system since electronic records began, nor do we have any record of a writ by that name ever having been filed or denied by the Court of Appeal. Finally, the quotation attributed to Maislin in the Petition does not appear to correspond to any real case."
"The citation to Rios v. City of West Sacramento (2013) 2013 Cal.Wrk.Comp. P.D. LEXIS 626 (WCAB panel decision) appears similarly nonexistent. The provided citation is actually to Santino v. Strategic Alliance Staffing Servs. (2013) 2013 Cal. Wrk. Comp. P.D. LEXIS 626, an unrelated case, nor does the caption Rios v. City of West Sacramento appear to correspond to any real case."
"All of these flawed citations are concerning, but we are particularly perturbed by the apparent conjuration from thin air of Maislin and Rios – two cases which, as far as we can tell, simply do not exist. It is difficult to comprehend how such apparently fake citations could make their way into a pleading filed under penalty of perjury, without having been caught and corrected prior to filing with the normal exercise of due diligence."
"Here, although it seems apparent that the citations in question fall afoul of WCAB Rule 10421, Business and Professions Code section 6068, and Rule 3.3 of the California Rules of Professional Conduct, we are left in the dark as to motive and method – in other words, how such citations were included in the Petition in the first place, and why. To that end, the operative question before us is not so much how the Petition was drafted in a strictly mechanical sense – for example, whether artificial intelligence (AI) was involved – as how it came to be signed and submitted under penalty of perjury by a licensed attorney."
"We will therefore issue a Notice of Intention (“NIT”) to impose sanctions, in order to provide applicant’s attorney an opportunity to respond to our concerns and explain what occurred. We anticipate that the response will explain how these errors came to be included in the Petition and why they were not caught and corrected prior to filing, along with any other information that applicant’s attorneys deem relevant in assessing whether sanctions should be imposed."
- Nationwide Event Security Firm Resolves Fair Chance Hiring Act Caseon October 2, 2025 at 12:51 PM
Contemporary Services Corporation (CSC), one of the largest event staffing companies in the United States, has agreed to overhaul its hiring practices under a settlement resolving claims that it illegally denied a job to a qualified California applicant based on his conviction history.
CSC, which staffs major events including the Super Bowl, presidential inaugurations, and papal visits, employs nearly 59,000 workers across the country and about 10,000 in California alone. The company’s reforms will bring its hiring policies into compliance with California’s Fair Chance Act (Gov’t Code § 12952) and are expected to impact tens of thousands of current and future workers nationwide.
The settlement stems from a complaint filed by a California resident referred to by the pseudonym James to protect his privacy. James interviewed successfully for an event staff position, received a conditional offer, and completed onboarding. He voluntarily disclosed a past conviction he received long ago during a bout of homelessness - information he was told would not affect his employment. After receiving his background check days later, CSC quietly changed his hiring status to “rejected,” without explanation, legal notice, or any opportunity to respond.
James claimed this conduct violated California’s Fair Chance Act In effect since 2018. The Fair Chance Act bars most employers from asking about conviction history until after a job offer is made. It also requires individualized assessments that consider the nature of the offense, time passed, and relevance to the job. Employers must provide written notice of any adverse employment decision and give applicants a meaningful chance to submit evidence of rehabilitation or mitigating circumstances. CSC failed to do any of this.
According to the Legal Aid at Work settlement announcement, the "case reflects a larger pattern of illegal hiring practices that disproportionately and systemically harm Black and Brown workers and justice-impacted communities. As the Legislature recognized in passing the Fair Chance Act, '[r]oughly seven million Californians, or nearly one in three adults, have an arrest or conviction record that can significantly undermine their efforts to obtain gainful employment.' Nationally, formerly incarcerated people face unemployment at nearly five times the rate of the general public - levels higher than during the Great Depression."
“This case is about dignity, fairness, and the right to be judged for your potential - not your past,” said Molly Lao, Staff Attorney at Legal Aid at Work.
As part of the settlement, CSC has agreed to comprehensive reforms designed to bring its California hiring practices into full compliance with the Fair Chance Act and related civil rights laws. These include eliminating the use of automated decision matrices, ending requests for applicants to self-disclose criminal history, and revising all background check policies to require individualized assessments and legally compliant notice procedures. CSC will provide updated policies to the California Civil Rights Department for review and will deliver detailed annual reports on hiring outcomes for applicants with conviction histories. The company will also implement two years of mandatory Fair Chance Act training for all California hiring personnel and provide verification and training materials to the California Civil Rights Department.
“These reforms are more than policy changes - they’re a path to opportunity for tens of thousands of workers,” said Lao. “This case has changed my life,” said James. “I’m glad that others who apply to CSC won’t have to go through what I did, and that we all can start building a future.”
- Retailer to Pay $1.3M for California Consumer Privacy Act Violationson October 9, 2025 at 4:31 PM
The California Privacy Protection Agency (CPPA) Board has issued a decision based upon the Stipulation of the employer requiring Tractor Supply Company, the nation’s largest rural lifestyle retailer with more than 2,500 stores in 49 states, to change its business practices and pay a $1,350,000 fine to resolve claims that the company violated the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA). The fine is the largest in the CPPA’s history, and the decision is the first to address the importance of CCPA privacy notices and privacy rights of job applicants.
Tractor Supply Company is, a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business at 5401 Virginia Way, Brentwood, TN 37027. It is a for-profit corporation that describes itself as the nation’s largest rural lifestyle retailer. Tractor Supply has a large presence in California as farmers, ranchers, and agricultural workers form an important component of the state’s fabric and economy. Tractor Supply operates more than 85 brick-and-mortar stores across California, as well as a website and mobile application for online purchases.
In 2018, the Legislature took action to protect Californians’ privacy in the digital age by enacting the California Consumer Privacy Act (“CCPA”), Civ. Code §§ 1798.100–1798.199.100. The CCPA gives consumers certain rights with regard to their personal information, such as the right to know what personal information businesses collect from them, the right to stop businesses from selling their personal information, and the right to have it deleted.
In November 2020, California voters approved Proposition 24 with the aim of giving consumers more control over how businesses collect, use, share, and profit from their personal information. Prop. 24 strengthened the CCPA and established the Agency as an “independent watchdog” to “vigorously enforce the law,” recognizing that the unauthorized use and sharing of personal information creates a “heightened risk of harm” for consumers. Prop. 24, § 3(L) (2020).
The CPPA opened an investigation into Tractor Supply’s privacy practices after receiving a complaint from a consumer in Placerville, California. Tractor Supply produced thousands of pages of documents, answered the Agency’s questions, met with the Agency numerous times, and has remediated most of the issues described in the Stipulation. According to the Board’s decision, Tractor Supply violated Californians’ privacy rights by:
- - Failing to maintain a privacy policy that notified consumers of their rights;
- - Failing to notify California job applicants of their privacy rights and how to exercise them;
- - Failing to provide consumers with an effective mechanism to opt-out of the selling and sharing of their personal information, including through opt-out preference signals such as Global Privacy Control; and
- - Disclosing personal information to other companies without entering into contracts that contain privacy protections.
To resolve the allegations, Tractor Supply agreed to pay $1,350,000, implement broad remedial measures, such as scanning its digital properties to inventory tracking technologies, and require a corporate officer or director to certify compliance annually for the next four years.
The Board’s decision underscores the need for businesses to review their privacy notices and opt-out mechanisms, as well as the need for businesses to protect the privacy of their job applicants, not just their customers. Since 2023, job applicants, employees, and independent contractors have been afforded greater privacy protections.
The Board’s decision follows on the heels of a separate court case brought against Tractor Supply last month to enforce an investigative subpoena. With today's resolution, the CPPA’s Enforcement Division will be discontinuing that litigation.
The CPPA’s Recent Enforcement Actions to Protect Californians The CPPA continues to actively enforce California's cutting-edge privacy laws. Recent actions include:
- - Issuing a decision requiring clothing retailer Todd Snyder to change its business practices and pay a $345,178 fine for CCPA violations.
- - Issuing a decision requiring American Honda Motor Co. to change its business practices and pay a $632,500 fine for CCPA violations.
- - Securing a settlement agreement requiring data broker Background Alert — which promoted its ability to dig up “scary” amounts of information about people — to shut down or pay a steep fine.
- - Launching the bipartisan Consortium of Privacy Regulators to collaborate with states across the country to implement and enforce privacy laws nationwide.
- - Partnering with the data protection authorities in Korea, France, and the United Kingdom to share information and advance privacy protections for Californians.
In addition, the agency has secured more than half a dozen successful enforcement actions against unregistered data brokers following an investigative sweep launched late last year to assess compliance with the Delete Act.
The California Delete Act (SB 362) is a state law designed to enhance data privacy for California residents. It establishes a one-click mechanism for consumers to request that registered data brokers delete their personal information. The Act requires data brokers to register with the California Privacy Protection Agency, which will enforce compliance. This legislation builds upon previous privacy laws, such as the California Consumer Privacy Act, and aims to create a centralized deletion platform for easier consumer access to their data rights.
- Employer Has No Right to Arbitrate Headless PAGA Actionon October 9, 2025 at 4:31 PM
In February 2018, plaintiff Tricia Galarsa sued her former employer, Dolgen California, LLC (Dollar General), to recover civil penalties under PAGA for various Labor Code violations suffered by her or by other employees. The facts and procedural history set forth in the 2023 published case of Galarsa v Dolgen California, 88 Cal.App.5th 639, 305 Cal.Rptr.3d 15 were not recounted by the Court of Appeal in this 2025 opinion in the same case.
After Galarsa (2023), supra, 88 Cal.App.5th 639, was issued, the California Supreme Court granted Dollar General’s petition for review and deferred briefing pending its decision in Adolph v. Uber Technologies, Inc. (2023) 14 Cal.5th 1104 (Adolph). In September 2023, after Adolph was issued, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition for review. As a result, the clerk of this court issued a remittitur and this matter was returned to the trial court to implement our decision in Galarsa, supra, 88 Cal.App.5th 639.
In Galarsa (2023) the following was defined. “Type A/individual PAGA claim” refers to a PAGA claim seeking a civil penalty based on a Labor Code violation suffered by the plaintiff. (See Galarsa v. Dolgen California, LLC (2023) 88 Cal.App.5th 639, 648 (Galarsa) [“Type A” claim defined].) “Type O/nonindividual PAGA claim” refers to a PAGA claim seeking a civil penalty assessed on a Labor Code violation suffered by an employee other than the plaintiff. (See Galarsa, supra, 88 Cal.App.5th at p. 649 [“Type O” claim defined].)
That decision partially reversed the order denying Dollar General’s motion to compel arbitration and directed the trial court to issue a new order granting the motion to compel as to the Type A/individual PAGA claims. (Galarsa, supra, 88 Cal.App.5th at p. 655.) The denial of arbitration was affirmed as to the Type O/nonindividual PAGA claims and those claims were allowed to be pursued in court. (Ibid.) The Court of Appeal did not address whether the trial court should stay the litigation on the Type O/nonindividual PAGA claims pending the completion of the arbitration.
In October 2024, Dollar General filed a renewed motion to compel arbitration and to stay proceedings on the Type O/nonindividual PAGA claims. On November 22, 2024, the trial court held a hearing on the pending motion to compel arbitration and the demurrer. The court determined arbitration was not a mandatory first step for a plaintiff seeking to pursue only Type O/nonindividual PAGA claims. As a result, it denied the motion to compel arbitration. It also overruled the demurrer. A few days later, Dollar General filed a notice of appeal from the order denying its motion to compel arbitration.
The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court in its 2025 published decision in Galarsa (II) v. Dolgen California -F089004 (October 2025).
"In this consolidated appeal and writ proceeding, we address two questions involving the Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (PAGA; Lab. Code,1 § 2698 et seq.). The first question is whether the version of PAGA in effect from mid-2016 to mid-2024 authorized an aggrieved employee to bring a PAGA action that seeks to recover civil penalties imposed for Labor Code violations suffered only by other employees. Such lawsuits are sometimes referred to as “headless” PAGA actions because the plaintiff employee has chosen not to pursue civil penalties for violations he or she suffered personally. (CRST Expedited, Inc. v. Superior Court (2025) 112 Cal.App.5th 872, 882 (CRST Expedited).) We again conclude such PAGA actions were allowed. (Ibid.)"
"The second question arises only if headless PAGA actions were allowed and involves standing to pursue the PAGA action as the representative of the Labor and Workforce Development Agency (LWDA). To have standing, a PAGA plaintiff must be an “aggrieved employee.” (See § 2699, former subd. (c) [definition of aggrieved employee].) The question is whether the plaintiff employee’s status as aggrieved employee is a separate dispute that must be resolved in arbitration before the headless PAGA action proceeds in court."
"This question does not appear to have been decided by a California appellate court since the United States Supreme Court decided Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana (2022) 596 U.S. 639 (Viking River)."
"We conclude the parties’ agreement to arbitrate certain disputes does not encompass the issue of plaintiff’s status as an aggrieved employee because that dispute is one the plaintiff’s principal, Labor and Workforce Development Agency (LWDA), has against the employer."
"We therefore deny the employer’s petition for a writ of mandate challenging the trial court’s order overruling its demurrer to the headless PAGA action and affirm the order denying the employer’s motion to compel arbitration of the standing issue." - Appellate Court Rejects WCAB View on Pro-Athlete Jurisdiction Lawon October 8, 2025 at 1:59 PM
Wayne Gandy spent 15 years - from 1994 to 2009 - as a professional football player with the National Football League (NFL). He played with the Los Angeles Rams (LA Rams) during the 1994 season, his first with the NFL. He played the next three years with the St. Louis Rams (STL Rams) under the contract he had signed in California with the LA Rams, but he never again played for a California team. He played for the Pittsburgh Steelers (Steelers) from April 1999 to February 2003, the New Orleans Saints (Saints) from March 2003 to April 2006, and finally, petitioner Atlanta Falcons (Falcons) from April 2006 until his retirement in February 2009.
Six years after he retired, Gandy filed a claim in California for workers’ compensation, claiming a cumulative injury to multiple body parts.
In June 2019, Gandy’s claim went to trial on three issues: (1) whether California has jurisdiction over Gandy’s claim; (2) whether jurisdiction should be exercised in light of the choice of law and forum selection clauses in Gandy’s contracts with the Falcons and the Saints (McKinley v. Arizona Cardinals (2013) 78 Cal.Comp.Cases 23); and (3) whether Gandy’s claim against the Falcons was barred by the applicable statutes of limitation.
The workers’ compensation judge (WCJ) who heard Gandy’s claim issued an opinion determining the Falcons were exempted from liability under California workers’ compensation law pursuant to Labor Code section 3600.5, subdivisions (c) and (d). The WCJ’s opinion also determined Gandy was exempted from coverage under the same provisions.
The WCAB issued an opinion and decision after reconsideration, that rescinded the WCJ’s order and found the WCAB had jurisdiction over Gandy’s claim. The WCAB took the position, in line with its previous decision in Hansell v. Arizona Diamondbacks (2022) 87 Cal.Comp.Cases 602, that it has jurisdiction under section 3600.5(a) over any athlete who ever signed a contract in California or with a California team, regardless of subdivisions (c) or (d), and it therefore had jurisdiction over Gandy’s claim because, during his first season in the NFL, he signed a contract with a California team. The WCAB also determined any choice of law/forum selection clause(s) should not be enforced. The WCAB opinion deferred deciding whether Gandy’s claim for compensation was barred by the statute of limitations set forth in section 5405.
After an appeal, the Court of Appeals found that the Falcons are exempted under sections 3600.5(c) and (d). The WCAB’s opinion and decision after reconsideration was therefore annulled and the matter was remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion in the published case of Atlanta Falcons v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Bd. -G064622 (October 2025).
In 2013, the Legislature added sections 3600.5(c) and 3600.5(d) to section 3600.5, to explicitly address a specific subset of workers’ compensation claims: cumulative injury claims by professional athletes. (Stats. 2013, ch. 653, § 1.) Section 3600.5(c) reads, in pertinent part: “With respect to an occupational disease or cumulative injury, a professional athlete who has been hired outside of this state and his or her employer shall be exempted from the provisions of this division while the professional athlete is temporarily within this state doing work for his or her employer if” the employer provides workers’ compensation or its equivalent for the athlete under the laws of another state and that compensation covers the athlete’s employment in this state. (Id., subd. (c)(1).)
In such a case, “the benefits under the workers’ compensation insurance or similar laws of the other state, and other remedies under those laws, shall be the exclusive remedy against the employer for any . . . cumulative injury . . . .” (Id., subd. (c)(2), italics added.) A professional athlete is “temporarily within” California if he or she “performs less than 20 percent of his or her duty days in California” “during the 365 consecutive days immediately preceding” the last day of work for that employer within California. (Id., subd. (c)(3).)
Gandy’s last day of work for the Falcons in California was a November 30, 2008 game against the San Diego Chargers. In the 365 days preceding that date, Gandy’s total duty days included four games and at least 250 practice days. None of the practices and only one of the games was in California - less than 20 percent of Gandy’s duty days during the relevant period. The Falcons are therefore exempt under the terms of section 3600.5(c).
But the Court of Appeal then noted "But that is not the end of the inquiry. As the WCAB recognized, Gandy was, in fact, hired as a professional football player in California (albeit by the LA Rams, not by the Falcons) at one point early in his 15-year NFL career. Therefore, section 3600.5(c) raises a question: what happens when a professional athlete is hired both by California and non-California teams over the course of his or her career and suffers a cumulative injury or occupational disease arising from that career?"
"Section 3600.5(d) provides a clear answer. It specifies that both a professional athlete claiming a cumulative injury and his or her employer are exempted when “all of the professional athlete’s employers in his or her last year of work as a professional athlete are exempt from this division pursuant to subdivision (c) or any other law, unless both the following conditions are satisfied”: (1) “[t]he professional athlete has, over the course of his or her professional athletic career, worked for two or more seasons for a California- based team” or “worked 20 percent or more of his or her duty days either in California or for a California-based team” and (2) the professional athlete has “worked for fewer than seven seasons for any team or teams other than a California-based team or teams.” (§ 3600.5, subd. (d)(1).)"
"In other words, if all the employers in the last year of an athlete’s career are exempt - under section 3600.5(c) or otherwise - the athlete’s career is not governed by California worker’s compensation law unless the athlete satisfies two conditions: (1) he or she spent either two or more seasons or 20 percent of his or her total career working in California or for a California- based team; and (2) he or she spent fewer than seven total seasons working for any non-California team or teams."
"Gandy fails both tests. He was employed for 15 seasons, only one of which was in California with a California based team, and he worked fewer than 20 percent of his duty days in California or for a California-based team. Therefore, section 3600.5(d) exempts both Gandy and the Falcons from California worker’s compensation law."
Looking at section 3600.5, the WCAB opinion found an ambiguity between section 3600.5(a) - which provides coverage for California employees injured while working outside of California - and sections 3600.5(c) and (d), which set forth exemptions from coverage for cumulative injuries suffered by professional athletes. Specifically, the WCAB opinion concluded: “the phrase ‘a professional athlete who has been hired outside of this state’ in section 3600.5, subdivision (c) is ambiguous as applied to a claim like [Gandy’s], where the applicant has California contracts of hire, but not with the particular employer that is asserted to be exempt pursuant to the subdivision.”
After examining the legislative history relating to sections 3600.5(c) and (d), the WCAB determined “the Legislature did not intend for [sections 3600.5(c) and (d)] to apply to athletes who have been hired in California by at least one employer during the cumulative trauma injury period.” The Court of Appeal ruled that the "WCAB’s interpretation is fundamentally flawed."
To this the Court of Appeal said "The overriding problem with the WCAB’s interpretation is that it renders superfluous the plain language of section 3600.5(d), which specifically addresses professional athletes who ultimately suffer a cumulative injury after having been hired by one or more California-based teams at some point in their career."
"Moreover, even if sections 3600.5(a), (c), and (d) were in conflict (and we do not find they are), sections 3600.5(c) and (d), as the later and more specific enactments, would take precedence over the earlier and more general section 3600.5(a)."
- LA Jury Awards $966M to Decedent's Family in J&J Talc Related Caseon October 8, 2025 at 1:59 PM
On October 6, 2025, in Los Angeles Superior Court, a jury found J&J liable for the death of Mae Moore, an 88-year-old California woman who died in 2021 from mesothelioma, a rare cancer strongly linked to asbestos exposure. Moore's family alleged that decades of using J&J's talcum-based baby powder and Shower-to-Shower products exposed her to asbestos-contaminated talcum, which the company knowingly concealed. This verdict marks one of the largest single-plaintiff awards in the ongoing talc litigation.
The verdict awarded $16 million in compensatory damages (for medical expenses, pain and suffering, and loss to the family). $950 million in punitive damages (intended to punish J&J for alleged reckless behavior and deter future misconduct). The total jury verdict was $966 million.
The jury determined that J&J was negligent in manufacturing and marketing its talc products, failed to warn consumers about asbestos risks, and that the products were defective. They rejected J&J's defenses, including claims that its testing showed no asbestos and that scientific consensus supports the safety of its talc.
The case was the latest in a series of individual trials after federal courts rejected J&J's multiple attempts to settle thousands of talc claims via bankruptcy filings (the third rejection occurred earlier in 2025). Mesothelioma cases like this represent a smaller subset of the broader litigation, which primarily involves ovarian cancer claims.
J&J has vehemently denied liability, stating that its talc products "do not contain asbestos and do not cause cancer," citing decades of independent scientific evaluations and regulatory tests. Erik Haas, J&J's Worldwide Vice President of Litigation, called the verdict "egregious and unconstitutional," accusing plaintiffs' lawyers of relying on "junk science."
The company announced it will immediately appeal, potentially arguing that punitive damages exceed constitutional limits (U.S. Supreme Court guidelines suggest they should not exceed 9 times compensatory damages, which could reduce the award to around $144 million). J&J has successfully appealed or won some prior talc cases, including a recent South Carolina mesothelioma trial.
J&J faces over 67,000 lawsuits nationwide alleging its talc products caused cancers like mesothelioma and ovarian cancer due to asbestos contamination. The company discontinued talc-based baby powder in the U.S. in 2020 (switching to cornstarch) and globally in 2023 amid declining sales and scrutiny. Other notable California verdicts include:
- - August 2024: $417 million ($70M compensatory + $347M punitive) to a woman with ovarian cancer (Echeverria case).
- - July 2023: $18.8 million to a man with mesothelioma (Valadez case). 2019: $29.4 million to a woman with mesothelioma (Leavitt case).
- - In 2024, J&J also paid $700 million to settle a separate multi-state investigation into misleading safety claims about talc.
Despite these losses, J&J maintains its products are safe and has won several trials.This litigation highlights ongoing debates in science and law: While some studies link genital talc use to ovarian cancer risk and asbestos in talc to mesothelioma, major health bodies like the FDA and WHO have not conclusively banned cosmetic talc, emphasizing the need for more research. - Governor Newsom Vetoes the Proposed SIBTF Reform Lawon October 7, 2025 at 4:56 PM
The SIBTF is funded through a payroll surcharge levied on all employers, based on a percentage of the premium paid by insured employers, and based on a percentage of indemnity paid during the most recent year for self-insured employers. In 2023, noting rapid increases in the volume of applications and payments for SIBTF benefits, DIR contracted with RAND to "conduct a comprehensive study of the SIBTF." This report, published in June 2024, identified startling trends concerning the long-term liabilities of the SIBTF and its resulting financial instability.
Insured employers pay roughly $1.4 billion in permanent disability payments. Self-insured employers – private and public – likely add another $500 million to $1 billion. Together, total annual permanent disability payouts under the standard workers’ compensation system likely total about $2 billion. SIBTF, once a relatively small program, now pays more permanent disability payments ($2 billion to $3 billion) than the state’s core workers’ compensation program.
AB 1329 was passed by the legislature with the stated purpose of reforming the SIBTF to reduce costs and the expected deficits in funding. Among other reforms AB1329 would specify that medical-legal evidence in an SIBTF claim proceeding can only be obtained through the QME process, and would require the AD to create and maintain a database of QME physicians with the necessary training and expertise to evaluate SIBTF claims from which to empanel QMEs for these purposes. Unfortunately, Gavin Newsom vetoed the proposed law. His veto letter provided the following reasons to the legislature.
"I am returning Assembly Bill 1329 without my signature. This bill would make assorted changes to the Subsequent Injury Benefit Trust Fund (SIBTF), a World War II-era program created to protect disabled veterans entering the workforce. Proposed changes include incorporating a Qualified Medical Evaluator (QME) process, excluding certain medical conditions from the definition of pre-existing disabilities, and adding a statute of limitations on claims."
"I commend the author for identifying the SIBTF as needing significant reform. Over the past decade, SIBTF has expanded significantly beyond its original purpose. The number of claims has sky rocketed, leading to an unsustainable future for the program. The Deportment of Industrial Relations estimates that, without comprehensive reform, the annual assessment paid by all employers will increase from $372 million in FY 2021-22 to $1.5 billion in FY 2029-30. As the Legislative Analyst's Office noted in a July 2025 report, workers submitting SIBTF claims today could see processing delays of up to ten years unless we take comprehensive action. Notably, other states, facing similar pressures, have chosen to eliminate their programs rather than reform them. This situation is dire and the state must act immediately."
"Unfortunately, AB 1329 does not contain the comprehensive reforms necessary to save SIBTF. While some of the changes, such as the proposed QME process and the statute of limitations, are important, other changes take the program in the wrong direction. For example, including the impact on the "activities of daily living" in the determination of a prior disability contradicts the concept that the prior disability must be labor-disabling. This change would increase SIBTF claims and liabilities."
"To ensure this program continues to serve workers as intended, comprehensive SIBTF reform must be pursued next year. I am directing the Department of Industrial Relations and its Division of Workers' Compensation to develop a proposal for comprehensive reform to include in January's 2026-27 budget proposal. I look forward to working with the Legislature to ensure this program continues to serve California workers." - Clear and Unmistakable Evidence is Words in the Arbitration Agreementon October 7, 2025 at 4:56 PM
Plaintiff Carlos Villalobos was employed by Simplified Labor Staffing Solutions, Inc., a temporary staffing services company that supplies labor and staffing to its customers. Simplified Staffing placed plaintiff with Maersk Warehouse and Distribution Services, where he worked first as a materials handler and later as a forklift operator. Simplified describes Maersk as “a warehousing and logistics company that warehouses goods in California that originate outside California and processes logistics for customers all over the United States.”
Plaintiff filed a class action alleging multiple wage and hour claims under the Labor Code, and an unfair competition claim, against defendant Maersk, Inc. The first amended complaint identified Maersk, Inc., Damco Distribution Services Inc. (now known as Maersk Warehouse and Distribution Services USA LLC), and Simplified Labor Staffing as plaintiff’s employers.
Plaintiff also filed a separate representative action against Maersk, Inc. for civil penalties under PAGA on behalf of himself and other current and former employees. The two cases were later consolidated.
The parties to the arbitration agreement are plaintiff and Simplified Labor Solutions. The arbitration agreement in this case consists of two separate documents: a May 11, 2020 “Employee Agreement to Arbitrate” (the employee agreement) and a “Notice to Employees About Our Mutual Arbitration Policy” (the arbitration policy), both requiring binding arbitration of all disputes with the company that relate in any way to plaintiff’s employment.
The three defendants filed a joint motion to compel arbitration. The trial court granted defendants’ motion in part and denied it in part. First, the court addressed defendants’ contention that the parties delegated resolution of enforcement issues to the arbitrator. The court found there was not a clear and unmistakable agreement to delegate enforceability issues to the arbitrator, citing cases holding (among other points) that in the employment context, an agreement incorporating by reference an arbitration organization’s standardized rules did not meet the clear and unmistakable test.
The trial court then turned to the substance of plaintiff’s opposition to arbitration, ultimately concluding plaintiff “was among a class of workers engaged in foreign or interstate commerce,” and the FAA did not apply to the agreement; “[t]he California Arbitration Act (CAA) and other provisions of California law apply instead.”
Third, the court found that under Labor Code section 229, if a cause of action seeks to collect due and unpaid wages pursuant to sections 200 through 244, the action may be maintained in court despite an agreement to arbitrate. Thus plaintiff could maintain in court his claim for nonpayment of minimum wages; his other claims (missed meal and rest breaks, overtime, and so on) were outside the purview of section 229.
Fourth, the trial court agreed with plaintiff that Labor Code section 229 also shielded from arbitration his claim for waiting time penalties, to the extent that claim was based on failure to pay minimum wages. (The court observed that “[a]s a practical matter, . . . without first deciding whether Defendants failed to pay [plaintiff] minimum wages (non-arbitrable Count 1), the arbitrator cannot possibly decide whether Defendants ought to be penalized for the failure to timely pay [plaintiff] minimum wages.”)
Fifth, the court concluded that under California law, no part of plaintiff’s PAGA claim was arbitrable, stating that “[s]tate law rules that are preempted by the FAA are nevertheless good law in cases that do not involve the FAA.”
Thus, the court denied defendants’ motion to compel plaintiff to arbitrate his minimum wage claim, his waiting penalties claim to the extent it is based on his minimum wage claim, and the PAGA action. The court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration of plaintiff’s other wage and hour claims and his unfair competition claim (counts 2-6, 7 (in part) & 8). The court denied defendants’ motion to dismiss the non- individual PAGA claims, granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the putative class claims, and granted defendants’ motion to stay proceedings.
The defendants appealed. The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s ruling in its entirety in the published case of Villalobos v. Maersk, Inc. -B333556 (October 2025).
“Under California law, it is presumed the judge will decide arbitrability, unless there is clear and unmistakable evidence the parties intended the arbitrator to decide arbitrability.” (Dennison v. Rosland Capital LLC (2020) 47 Cal.App.5th 204, 209.) This is a well-established principle of arbitration law, applied in both state and federal cases. (E.g., First Options of Chicago, Inc. v. Kaplan (1995) 514 U.S. 938, 944 (First Options) [“Courts should not assume that the parties agreed to arbitrate arbitrability unless there is ‘clea[r] and unmistakabl[e]’ evidence that they did so.”].)
"Here we hold, in the context of a mandatory arbitration agreement between an employer and an hourly worker, that the incorporation of the rules of an arbitration provider – without expressly specifying in the parties’ agreement that under those rules the arbitrator will decide the scope and validity of the arbitration agreement – is not clear and unmistakable evidence of the parties’ intent to have those issues decided by the arbitrator. Absent unusual circumstances, an employer who intends to delegate issues of arbitrability to the arbitrator must express that intent in the arbitration agreement itself. Anything less is not clear and unmistakable evidence that both parties understood and intended that the arbitrator would decide arbitrability questions." - CDI Files Action Against Tesla For Insurance Business Practiceson October 6, 2025 at 5:07 PM
The California Department of Insurance issued enforcement actions today against Tesla Insurance Services, Inc. and Tesla Insurance Company (Tesla Companies), plus State National Insurance Company (State National), in order to protect consumers after the companies allegedly repeatedly failed in their legal obligations to adequately handle hundreds of California automobile policyholder claims. Tesla Insurance Services, Inc. is an appointed agent for State National, an admitted insurer in California.
Unless these issues are resolved in favor of policyholders beforehand, the companies will be ordered to a hearing before an administrative law judge to determine whether they will be able to maintain their ability to transact insurance business in California as well as face significant monetary penalties.
The actions allege that, despite being repeatedly warned by the Department of Insurance, the Tesla Companies and State National instead chose to abandon their responsibility to consumers and persist with their non-compliant claims-handling practices, placing profits above people and flouting the law with impunity.
After allegedly continuing to receive a significant number of consumer complaints related to the handling of their automobile policyholder claims beginning in 2022, the Department of Insurance repeatedly warned the Tesla Companies and State National of the significant harm to their policyholders -- largely Tesla drivers -- unless immediate corrective actions were taken.
Throughout numerous meetings with, correspondence between, and reports to the Department of Insurance, the companies repeatedly committed to improvements, but allegedly the number of justified consumer complaints and violations continued to mount.
The Department’s accusations are based on the companies’ ongoing systemic failures and willful unfair claims settlement practices including, but not limited to, the following alleged violations:
- - Egregious delays in responding to policyholder claims in all steps of the claims handling process, causing financial harm, out-of-pocket expenses, potential third-party liability exposure, and distress to policyholders
- - Unreasonable denials and delays in fully paying valid claims to consumers
- - Failure to conduct thorough, fair, and objective investigations of claims, thus denying consumers the insurance benefits they expect
- - Failure to advise policyholders of their rights to have their claims denials reviewed by the Department – a major consumer protection in California to make sure insurers are held accountable by their regulator
The companies have 15 days to respond to the Department’s Accusations and Notices.The companies face monetary penalties up to $5,000 for each unlawful, unfair, or deceptive act, or up to $10,000 for each such act determined to be willful.
In approximately the first quarter of 2022, Tesla Insurance Holdings, LLC, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Tesla, Inc., a Delaware Corporation, acquired control of Balboa Insurance Company, including its wholly-owned subsidiaries, Tesla Property & Casualty, Inc. (formerly known as Meritplan Insurance Company) and Tesla General Insurance, Inc. (formerly known as Newport Insurance Company). In approximately the first quarter of 2022, Balboa Insurance Company’s name was changed to Tesla Insurance Company, NAIC number 24813.
As of today (three days after the action was filed), there has not been any public statement, press release, or response from Tesla, Elon Musk, or the Tesla Companies addressing these specific accusations. Searches across news sources, Tesla's investor relations page, and X (formerly Twitter) posts from official Tesla/Musk accounts yielded no results indicating a reply. - Three Researchers (One in California) Awarded Nobel Prize in Medicineon October 6, 2025 at 5:07 PM
On October 6, 2025, the Nobel Assembly at Karolinska Institutet announced that the 2025 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine has been awarded to three immunologists: Mary E. Brunkow and Fred Ramsdell from the United States, and Shimon Sakaguchi from Japan. The trio shares the prize of 11 million Swedish kronor (approximately $1 million USD) equally for their groundbreaking discoveries on "peripheral immune tolerance" - a mechanism that keeps the immune system from mistakenly attacking the body's own healthy tissues, thereby preventing autoimmune diseases.
- - Mary E. Brunkow (born 1961) is a senior program manager at the Institute for Systems Biology in Seattle, Washington. She earned her Ph.D. from Princeton University and has focused on genetic research related to immune regulation.
- - Fred Ramsdell (born 1960) is a scientific advisor at Sonoma Biotherapeutics in San Francisco, California. He holds a Ph.D. from the University of California, Los Angeles (1987) and has worked extensively on T-cell biology.
- - Shimon Sakaguchi (born 1951) is a Distinguished Professor at the Immunology Frontier Research Center, Osaka University, Japan. He received his M.D. (1976) and Ph.D. (1983) from Kyoto University and is renowned for his work on T-cell suppression.
These researchers, working independently in the 1990s and early 2000s, challenged the long-held scientific consensus that immune tolerance (the ability to ignore self-tissues) occurred only in the thymus during T-cell development - a process known as "central tolerance." Instead, their work revealed a critical "peripheral" layer of control in the rest of the body.
Their contributions center on regulatory T cells (Tregs), a subset of immune cells that act like vigilant "security guards," patrolling the body to suppress overzealous immune responses against harmless or self-antigens. In essence, the laureates showed that without functional Tregs and *Foxp3*, the immune system loses its brakes, leading to chaos. This peripheral tolerance complements central mechanisms, creating a multi-layered defense.
This work has transformed immunology from a descriptive field into one ripe for therapeutic innovation. Autoimmune diseases affect over 50 million people in the U.S. alone, including rheumatoid arthritis, multiple sclerosis, type 1 diabetes, and lupus - conditions where the immune system turns traitor. By elucidating Treg biology, the laureates enabled strategies to "retrain" the immune system:
Broader implications include the following:
- - Autoimmune Treatments: Drugs that boost Treg function (e.g., low-dose IL-2 therapies) are in trials to dampen inflammation without broad immunosuppression.
- - Cancer Immunotherapy: Tregs can sometimes shield tumors from attack; inhibiting them enhances checkpoint inhibitors like PD-1 blockers, improving outcomes in melanoma and lung cancer.
- - Organ Transplants: Treg infusions help prevent rejection by promoting tolerance to foreign tissues, reducing reliance on lifelong drugs.
Several therapies inspired by this research are now in advanced clinical trials, with real-world approvals on the horizon. As the Nobel Committee noted, these insights explain "why not all individuals develop serious autoimmune diseases despite genetic risks," offering hope for personalized medicine. The announcement has sparked widespread excitement in the scientific community, with early reactions highlighting its potential to address unmet needs in chronic diseases. - WCAB Intends to Sanction Applicant Attorneys for "Fabricated" Citationson October 2, 2025 at 12:51 PM
Jennifer Chase filed an application alleging a continuous trauma injury to multiple orthopedic body parts, sustained from November 30, 2016 through January 10, 2019 for the orthopedic injuries - later amended to include psyche injuries - while employed by defendant as a regional sales manager for Southern Implants of North America.
She sought reconsideration of the Findings & Award (“F&A”) issued on June 20, 2025 by the WCJ who found that she did not sustain a psychiatric injury arising out of and in the course of employment.
The WCAB granted the Petition for Reconsideration and issued a Notice of Intention to impose sanctions of up to $2,500.00 jointly and severally against applicant’s attorneys Ghitterman, Ghitterman & Feld and Anton Diffenderfer (CAL BAR #229171). A final decision on the merits of the petition was deferred pending resolution of the issue of sanctions in the case of Jennifer Chase v Southern Implants of North America -ADJ12865802 (September 2025).
The WCAB noted in its Opinion that with the exception of Hegglin, each of the citations it quoted as having been made by applicant attorneys were " flawed in significant ways, and in two cases, the citations appear to entirely fabricated."
The Opinion went on to specify that "In rough order of egregiousness, the proper citation for the 1975 case Patterson v. WCAB is 53 Cal.App.3d 916; the Petition’s given citation, 40 Cal.App.3d 936, is not a real citation, but corresponds most closely to a completely unrelated criminal case from 1974, People v. Orlosky (1974) 40 Cal.App.3d 935."
"Next, the Petition’s purported citation to Tyner v. WCAB (1998) 63 Cal. Comp. Cases 1744 instead corresponds to Wright v. W.C.A.B, a decision relating to an entirely different issue. It appears that the Petition is attempting to cite to Tyler v. Workers Compensation Appeals Bd. (1997) 62 Cal. Comp. Cases 924."
"Finally, and of greatest concern, the citations to Maislin v. WCAB (2022) 87 Cal. Comp. Cases 765 (writ den.) and Rios v. City of West Sacramento (2013) 2013 Cal.Wrk.Comp. P.D. LEXIS 626 (WCAB panel decision) appear to be entirely fabricated. The cite given in the Petition for Maislin most closely corresponds to McCullar v. SMC Contracting, Inc. (2022) 83 Cal.App.5th 1005 [87 Cal. Comp. Cases 758], an unrelated civil case involving the independent contractor doctrine. Based on our review, no case under the name Maislin has been filed in the California workers’ compensation system since electronic records began, nor do we have any record of a writ by that name ever having been filed or denied by the Court of Appeal. Finally, the quotation attributed to Maislin in the Petition does not appear to correspond to any real case."
"The citation to Rios v. City of West Sacramento (2013) 2013 Cal.Wrk.Comp. P.D. LEXIS 626 (WCAB panel decision) appears similarly nonexistent. The provided citation is actually to Santino v. Strategic Alliance Staffing Servs. (2013) 2013 Cal. Wrk. Comp. P.D. LEXIS 626, an unrelated case, nor does the caption Rios v. City of West Sacramento appear to correspond to any real case."
"All of these flawed citations are concerning, but we are particularly perturbed by the apparent conjuration from thin air of Maislin and Rios – two cases which, as far as we can tell, simply do not exist. It is difficult to comprehend how such apparently fake citations could make their way into a pleading filed under penalty of perjury, without having been caught and corrected prior to filing with the normal exercise of due diligence."
"Here, although it seems apparent that the citations in question fall afoul of WCAB Rule 10421, Business and Professions Code section 6068, and Rule 3.3 of the California Rules of Professional Conduct, we are left in the dark as to motive and method – in other words, how such citations were included in the Petition in the first place, and why. To that end, the operative question before us is not so much how the Petition was drafted in a strictly mechanical sense – for example, whether artificial intelligence (AI) was involved – as how it came to be signed and submitted under penalty of perjury by a licensed attorney."
"We will therefore issue a Notice of Intention (“NIT”) to impose sanctions, in order to provide applicant’s attorney an opportunity to respond to our concerns and explain what occurred. We anticipate that the response will explain how these errors came to be included in the Petition and why they were not caught and corrected prior to filing, along with any other information that applicant’s attorneys deem relevant in assessing whether sanctions should be imposed." - Nationwide Event Security Firm Resolves Fair Chance Hiring Act Caseon October 2, 2025 at 12:51 PM
Contemporary Services Corporation (CSC), one of the largest event staffing companies in the United States, has agreed to overhaul its hiring practices under a settlement resolving claims that it illegally denied a job to a qualified California applicant based on his conviction history.
CSC, which staffs major events including the Super Bowl, presidential inaugurations, and papal visits, employs nearly 59,000 workers across the country and about 10,000 in California alone. The company’s reforms will bring its hiring policies into compliance with California’s Fair Chance Act (Gov’t Code § 12952) and are expected to impact tens of thousands of current and future workers nationwide.
The settlement stems from a complaint filed by a California resident referred to by the pseudonym James to protect his privacy. James interviewed successfully for an event staff position, received a conditional offer, and completed onboarding. He voluntarily disclosed a past conviction he received long ago during a bout of homelessness - information he was told would not affect his employment. After receiving his background check days later, CSC quietly changed his hiring status to “rejected,” without explanation, legal notice, or any opportunity to respond.
James claimed this conduct violated California’s Fair Chance Act In effect since 2018. The Fair Chance Act bars most employers from asking about conviction history until after a job offer is made. It also requires individualized assessments that consider the nature of the offense, time passed, and relevance to the job. Employers must provide written notice of any adverse employment decision and give applicants a meaningful chance to submit evidence of rehabilitation or mitigating circumstances. CSC failed to do any of this.
According to the Legal Aid at Work settlement announcement, the "case reflects a larger pattern of illegal hiring practices that disproportionately and systemically harm Black and Brown workers and justice-impacted communities. As the Legislature recognized in passing the Fair Chance Act, '[r]oughly seven million Californians, or nearly one in three adults, have an arrest or conviction record that can significantly undermine their efforts to obtain gainful employment.' Nationally, formerly incarcerated people face unemployment at nearly five times the rate of the general public - levels higher than during the Great Depression."
“This case is about dignity, fairness, and the right to be judged for your potential - not your past,” said Molly Lao, Staff Attorney at Legal Aid at Work.
As part of the settlement, CSC has agreed to comprehensive reforms designed to bring its California hiring practices into full compliance with the Fair Chance Act and related civil rights laws. These include eliminating the use of automated decision matrices, ending requests for applicants to self-disclose criminal history, and revising all background check policies to require individualized assessments and legally compliant notice procedures. CSC will provide updated policies to the California Civil Rights Department for review and will deliver detailed annual reports on hiring outcomes for applicants with conviction histories. The company will also implement two years of mandatory Fair Chance Act training for all California hiring personnel and provide verification and training materials to the California Civil Rights Department.
“These reforms are more than policy changes - they’re a path to opportunity for tens of thousands of workers,” said Lao. “This case has changed my life,” said James. “I’m glad that others who apply to CSC won’t have to go through what I did, and that we all can start building a future.”