Ramos v. Superior Court, No. A153390 (D1d1 Nov. 2, 2018)
The Court of Appeal holds that regardless of whether a non-equity income partner in a law firm is an employee or a partner for employment purposes, the balance of power in the relationship is employee-ish enough that the unconscionability rules that apply to FEHA and Tameny claims apply to whether she can be required to arbitrate the FEHA gender discrimination case she filed against the firm. Those weren’t followed here. So nobody is going to arbitration.
Writ granted.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
That's Not a Debate
Taylor v. Tesla , No. A168333 (D1d4 Aug. 8, 2024) Plaintiffs in this case are also members of a class in a race discrimination class action ...
-
RSB Vineyards, LLC v. Orsi , No. A143781 (D1d3 Sept. 29, 2017) In this real estate warranty case, the court affirms a summary judgment in ...
-
Pollock v. Superior Court , No. B321229 (D2d1 Jul. 31, 2023) Back in 2019, the Legislature amended Code of Civil Procedure § 2031.280 to inc...
No comments:
Post a Comment