The California Employment Lawyers Association advocates for the rights of working men and women.  As part of its mission, CELA files amicus briefs and letters on the important employment law issues of our day.  Here are selected CELA amicus briefs filed with the California Supreme Court and other appellate courts.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. STATE OF CALIFORNIA

CELA, along with 76 organizations and labor unions, signed onto the ACLU’s Amicus brief in in support of SB 54, California's Sanctuary law, filed November 13, 2018.  www.aclu.org

NGUYEN v. WELLS FARGO BANK

CELA's Amicus Curiae brief filed October 30, 2018, by Peter Rukin, Rukin Hyland & Riggin LLP.

LAWSON v. ZB, N.A. and ZIONS BANCORPORATION

CELA's Amicus Curiae brief filed August 29, 2018, by Bryan J. Schwartz, Logan T. Talbot, Eduard R. Meleshinsky, and DeCarol A. Davis, Bryan Schwartz Law.

FRLEKIN v. APPLE, INC.

CELA's Amicus Curiae brief filed July 3, 2018, by Aaron D. Kaufmann, Leonard Carder LLC.

FINDER v. LEPRINO FOODS CO.

CELA's Amicus Curiae brief filed October 25, 2017, by Louis Benowitz, Law Offices of Louis Benowitz.

OMAN v. DELTA AIR LINES, INC.

CELA's Amicus Curiae brief filed May 5, 2017, by Monique Olivier, Olivier Schreiber & Chao LLP.

TROESTER v. STARBUCKS CORPORATION

CELA, along with the Consumer Attorneys of California (CAOC), filed this Amicus Curiae brief on May 31, 2017, by Kimberly Kralowec, The Kralowec Law Group (CAOC) and Ari J. Stiller, Kingley & Kingsley (CELA).

GLOUCESTER COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD v. G.G.

CELA signed onto The Impact Fund’s Amicus brief in the transgender student case before the United States Supreme Court, March 2, 2017.  www.impactfund.org

PARK v. BOARD OF TRUSTEES

CELA’s Amicus Curiae brief filed April 5, 2016, by David J. Duchrow, Law Office of David J. Duchrow.

MENDOZA v. NORDSTROM

CELA’s Amicus Curiae brief filed December 17, 2015, by David J. Duchrow, Law Office of David J. Duchrow.

CASAS v. VICTORIA'S SECRET STORES

CELA's Amicus Curiae filed December 16, 2015, by Charlotte Fishman, Miles Locker, Anne Richardson, and Michael Singer, Cohelan Khoury & Singer.

DYNAMEX v. SUPERIOR COURT (LEE)

CELA’s Amicus Curiae brief filed December 4, 2015, by Monique Olivier, Olivier Schreiber & Chao LLP.

AUGUSTUS v. ABM SECURITY SERVICES, INC.

CELA’s Amicus Curiae brief filed November 20, 2015, by Louis Benowitz, Law Offices of Louis Benowitz.

RICHEY v. AUTONATION, INC.

CELA's Amicus Curiae brief filed August 7, 2013, by David J. Duchrow, Law Office of David J. Duchrow.

AYALA v. ANTELOPE VALLEY NEWSPAPERS, INC.

CELA's Amicus Curiae brief filed June 19, 2013, by Aaron D. Kaufmann and Beth Ross, Leonard Carder LLC.

PEABODY v. TIME WARNER CABLE INC.

CELA's Amicus Curiae brief filed May 31, 2013, by Michael Morrison, Alexander, Krakow + Glick, LLP.

ISKANIAN v. CLS TRANSPORTATION LOS ANGELES

CELA's Amicus Curiae brief filed May 10, 2013, by by Cliff Palefsky, McGuinn, Hillsman & Palefsky and Michael Rubin, Altshuler Berzon LLP.

DURAN v. U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION

CELA's Amicus Curiae brief filed May 3, 2013, by Kimberly Kralowec, The Kralowec Law Group, Bryan J. Schwartz, Bryan Schwartz Law, Michael Singer, Cohelan Khoury & Singer and Steven Zieff, Rudy, Exelrod Zieff & Lowe LLP.

HERNANDEZ v. CHIPOTLE MEXICAN GRILL, INC.

CELA's 2012 Amicus Curiae Supporting Review of the pending Petition for Review, Michael Singer, Cohelan Khoury & Singer.

HARRIS v. CITY OF SANTA MONICA

Amicus brief urging the California Supreme Court not to adopt a "mixed motive" defense to California Fair Employment and Housing Act claims that would permit employers to avoid liability for proven acts of discrimination by convincing the trier of fact that they would have taken the same action even if the employee's protected status had not been a motivating factor in its decision.  Filed February 10, 2011, by Charlotte Fishman, Pick Up the Pace and David J. Duchrow, Law Office of David J. Duchrow.

REID v. GOOGLE

Amicus brief urging the California Supreme Court to reject the "stray remarks" doctrine, which would permit the trial court in ruling on a motion for summary judgment to disregard isolated discriminatory remarks or comments unrelated to the decisionmaking process as insufficient to establish discrimination.  Reid v. Google, 50 Cal. 4th 512 (2010).  Filed July 30, 2008, by Charlotte Fishman, Pick Up the Pace.

JONES v. LODGE AT TORREY PINES

CELA’s Amicus Curiae brief filed October 22, 2007, by Jeffrey K. Winikow.

O'DELL v. INTERNATIONAL ASSET SYSTEMS USA LIMITED

CELA's Amicus Curiae brief filed September 10, 2007, by Richard D. Schramm.

EDWARDS v. ARTHUR ANDERSON LLP

CELA's Amicus Curiae brief filed May 14, 2007, by Jeffrey K. Winikow.

CHINDARAH v. PICK UP STIX, INC.

CELA's Amicus Curiae brief filed May 8, 2007, by Richard D. Schramm.

SAVANG v. CLUB ONE CASINO, INC.

CELA's Amicus Curiae brief filed May 8, 2007, by Richard D. Schramm.

GENTRY vs. SUPERIOR COURT (CIRCUIT CITY STORES)

Amicus Brief by CELA and several labor unions urging reversal of Gentry v. Superior Court (Circuit City Stores). Class action preclusion in arbitration agreement is unlawfully exculpatory, violative of public policy, and procedurally and substantively unconscionable. Unconscionability is not eliminated by opt-out clause, and potential value of individual named plaintiff's claim should have no bearing on enforceability of contractual class action prohibition.  Filed December 14, 2006, by Cliff Palefsky, McGuinn, Hillsman & Palefsky and Michael Rubin, Altshuler Berzon LLP.

MURPHY vs. KENNETH COLE PRODUCTIONS

Amicus Brief by CELA urging reversal of First District's decision in Murphy vs. Kenneth Cole Productions. Payments for missed meal and rest breaks under Labor Code section 226.7 are wages, not penalties, and claims are therefore subject to three-year rather than one-year limitations period.  Filed November 8, 2006, by Michael Singer, Cohelan Khoury & Singer.

NATIONAL STEEL AND SHIPBUILDING COMPANY v. SUPERIOR COURT (GODINEZ)

CELA's Amicus Curiae Supporting Review of the pending Petition for Review, filed October 6, 2005, by Michael Singer, Cohelan Khoury & Singer.

CARTER v. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS

Amicus Curiae Brief by CELA, filed April 25, 2005, by David J. Duchrow, Law Office of David J. Duchrow.

LYLE v. WARNER BROTHERS TELEVISION PRODUCTIONS, INC.

CELA's Amicus Curiae brief filed February 16, 2005, by Jeffrey K. Winikow.

DORE v. ARNOLD WORLDWIDE, INC.

CELA's Amicus Curiae brief filed February 4, 2005, by Jeffrey K. Winikow.


CELA AMICUS BRIEFS FILED PRIOR TO 2005


ADVANCED BIONICS CORPORATION v. MEDTRONIC, INC.

CELA’s Amicus Curiae brief filed March 14, 2002, by James P. Stoneman II

ARMENDARIZ v. FOUNDATION HEALTH PSYCHCARE SERVICE, INC.

This is CELA's 2000 amicus brief on mandatory arbitration of employment disputes. The brief argues that requiring employees to give up their right to a jury as a condition of work should be against "public policy." Employer created arbitration agreements violate employees' constitutional and statutory rights and puts employees at a severe disadvantage. These agreements have been proven to be grossly inferior, ineffective, exorbitantly expensive and inappropriate as a method for employees to enforce their statutory rights.  By Cliff Palefsky, McGuinn, Hillsman & Palefsky.

CAVALIER vs. HOLDEN

This 1998 CELA brief argues that plaintiffs' declarations in opposition to summary judgment motions should be allowed to clarify, elaborate on and add to deposition testimony. This argument is supported by a discussion of defense abuses in taking plaintiff depositions and using them in summary judgment motions. The brief also includes a helpful description of the continuing violation doctrine as set forth in cases such as Watson v. Dept. of Rehabilitation (1989) 212 Cal.App.3d 1271, 1290-1291 and Accardi v. Superior Court (1993) 17 Cal.App.4th 341.  By Joseph Posner.

CITY OF MOORPARK vs. SUPERIOR COURT

(Petition for review from Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Six, No. B093952). This CELA amicus brief urged the California Supreme Court to rule that workers who are discriminated against because of their work related disability may sue under FEHA, without preemption by the California Workers Compensation Act. The plaintiff had suffered from bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome, caused by the rapid and repetitive motion in her work environment.  By Joseph Posner.

CUMMINGS vs. AUTOMOBILE CLUB OF SO. CAL.

(Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Seven, No. B151808). CELA's amicus brief argues that exempt status for wage claims may properly be decided on a classwide basis.  By Jeffrey K. Winikow.  (March 2002).

JENNINGS v. JAMES J. MARRALLE, D.D.S.

CELA's 1993 Amicus Curiae, by Joseph Posner.

LANE vs. HUGHES AIRCRAFT COMPANY

(review from Court of Appeal, Second District, Division Seven, No. B090258). CELA challenges the trial court's decision to grant a new trial to defendant, after a unanimous jury verdict finding discrimination. This amicus brief reminds the Court that few bigots admit to discriminating, evidence of discrimination is normally circumstantial, and some trial judges are blind to the existence of discrimination. By Joseph Posner.

LAZAR vs. SUPERIOR COURT

(Court of Appeal, 2nd District Civ. No. B083795). CELA's brief argues that an employee who is subjected to fraudulent conduct by his employer should be allowed to sue both under statute, Labor Code Section 970, and on his common law claim under Tameny v. Atlantic Richfield (1980) 27 Cal.3d 167.  By Joseph Posner.

RENO vs. BAIRD

(California Supreme Court No. S065473, review from Court of Appeal, First District, Division Two, Civil No. A075578, Solano County Superior Court No. L003221). This CELA brief argued, unsuccessfully, that individual perpetrators of discrimination should be held personally liable for that discrimination under FEHA. (Harrassors and retaliators are already generally personally liable under FEHA for their discriminatory conduct.)  By Joseph Posner.

RICHARDS vs. CH2M HILL, INC.

(No. S087484, on appeal from published Court of Appeal decision). CELA's amicus brief on three issues in this FEHA failure to accommodate disability case: the continuing violation doctrine exception to the statute of limitations, the nature of the duty to reasonably accommodate, and the availability of front pay damages after the employee quits when there is no claim of constructive discharge.  By Joseph Posner.  (September 2000).

ROSENMAN vs. CHRISTENSEN, MILLER, FINK, JACOBS, GLASER, WEIL & SHAPIRO

(Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Seven, No. B131078). CELA's amicus brief about standards strictly limiting award of attorneys' fees to defendants in civil rights cases. By Marvin Krakow, Alexander, Krakow & Glick.  (March 2001)

SALAZAR vs. DIVERSIFIED PARATRANSIT, et al.

(Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Three, No. B142840). CELA's amicus brief argues that employers are liable under FEHA if they knowingly knowing allow third parties, such as customers, to sexually harass employees.   By Nancy Bornn and Jeffrey K. Winikow.  (March 2002).

SCOTT vs. PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY

(California Supreme Court No. S042601, review from Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Civil No. A058546). CELA successfully contended that employers should be liable for wrongful demotion where this violates an implied in fact agreement not to demote without good cause.  By Joseph Posner.

STEVENSON vs. SUPERIOR COURT

(Court of Appeal No. B089375). CELA argued successfully that there is a common law cause of action for age discrimination, expanding the holding of Rojo v. Kliger (1990) 52 Cal.3d 65.  By Joseph Posner.

WHITE vs. ULTRAMAR

(No. S070177, on appeal after a decision of the Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division One). This is CELA's amicus brief on the definition of "managing agent" for purposes of holding a corporate employer liable for punitive damages.  By Norman Pine, Pine Tillett Pine LLP, and Joseph Posner.

YANOWITZ v. LOREAL USA

CELA's Amicus Curiae brief filed March 12, 2004, by Jeffrey K. Winikow.