California Employment Law Notes

• Jurisdiction: United States,Federal,California
• Law Firm: Proskauer Rose LLP
• Subject Matter: Employment and HR, Employee Benefits & Compensation, Employee Rights/ Labour Relations
• Author: Mr Anthony Oncidi
• Published date: 02 February 2023

Age/National Origin Case Was Properly Dismissed Despite "Direct Evidence" Of Discriminatory Animus

Opara v. Yellin, 57 F.4th 709 (9^th Cir. 2023)

Joan Opara was terminated from her employment as an IRS revenue officer after the IRS determined she had committed several "UNAX offenses" (i.e., incidents of unauthorized access of taxpayer data). Following her termination, Opara sued the Treasury Secretary, alleging she was terminated in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act and Title VII for, respectively, age and national origin discrimination. The district court granted summary judgment to the Treasury Secretary, and the Ninth Circuit affirmed, concluding that Opara's direct evidence of age-related discriminatory animus (several age-related comments from a decision maker), while sufficient to support a prima facie case of age discrimination, was insufficient to raise a genuine issue as to pretext concerning the reasons offered by the Secretary for the termination. The reason the direct evidence was insufficient to defeat the summary judgment motion was because it consisted entirely of Opara's own uncorroborated and self-serving testimony and allegations (citing Villiarimo v. Aloha Island Air, Inc., 281 F.3d 1054 (9^th Cir. 2002)). The Ninth Circuit also affirmed dismissal of Opara's age/national origin discrimination claims based on her failure to show pretext for the UNAX offenses.

Family Court May Order Employer To Provide Determination Of Arrearages Owed In Spousal Support Case

Brubaker v. Strum, 2023 WL 179541 (Cal. Ct. App. 2023)

The family court ordered the employed former husband in this case to pay his former wife monthly child and spousal support payments; the husband's employer was ordered to withhold the total amount of support payments from the husband's paychecks and to forward those amounts to the California Child Support Services Department. Later, the wife filed a request with the family court for an order to determine child and spousal support arrearages. The family court denied the wife's request on the ground that the wife should seek relief directly from the husband's employer with respect to all periods during which there was a valid income withholding order in place. The Court of Appeal reversed, holding that pursuant to Family Code ' 5241, the wife was permitted to obtain an order from the family court compelling the husband to provide a determination of arrearages. The appellate court also reversed the $9,329.50 in sanctions the family court ordered the wife's attorney to pay to the husband.

Background Check Agency May Have Violated State Law By Disclosing Conviction

Kemp v. Superior Court, 86...