Cal-Peculiarities: How California Employment Law is Different 2022 Edition

©2022 Seyfarth Shaw LLP  www.seyfarth.com 2022 Cal-Peculiarities | 77 26 Pen. Code § 632. 27 Pen. Code § 637.2. 28 Pen. Code § 632(d). People v. Guzman , 8 Cal. 5th 673 (2019), affected Section 632(d) as to criminal cases. 29 Lab. Code § 435. 30 Sanders v. Am. Broad. Co. , 20 Cal. 4th 907 (1999) (employees talking around a cubicle could sue ABC news crew for surreptitiously videotaping). 31 Hernandez v. Hillsides, Inc. , 47 Cal. 4th 272 (2009). 32 Civ. Code § 56.20(a). 33 Civ. Code § 56.20(c). 34 Civ. Code § 56.20(b). 35 Civ. Code §§ 56.11, 56.21. 36 Lab. Code § 3762(c). 37 Civ. Code § 1798.85(a)(1)-(2), (4)-(5). 38 Civ. Code § 1798.85(a)(3). 39 Civ. Code § 1798.81.5(b). 40 Civ. Code § 1798.81.5(c). 41 Lab. Code § 980(a). 42 Lab. Code § 980(b)(1)-(3). 43 Lab. Code § 980(e). 44 Lab. Code § 980(c). 45 Lab. Code § 980(d). 46 Ignat v. Yum! Brands, Inc. , 214 Cal. App. 4th 808, 819 (2013) (“limiting liability for public disclosure of private facts to those recorded in a writing is contrary to the tort’s purpose, which has been since its inception to allow a person to control the kind of information about himself made available to the public—in essence, to define his public persona”). 47 Civ. Code § 1798.81.5(b). 48 Civ. Code § 1798.150(a)(1)(A). 49 Civ. Code § 1798.155(a). 50 Civ. Code § 1798.82(a). 51 Civ. Code § 1798.82(h)(1)(D), (E). 52 Civ. Code § 1798.82(d). 53 Civ. Code § 1798.82(d)(1). 54 Id. 55 Civ. Code § 1798.82(d)(1)(D). 56 See Code Civ. Proc. §§ 1985.6, FI: 0(d) (requiring advance notice to individual when individual’s employment records are being subpoenaed). 57 A rare exception occurred when the Court of Appeal struck down a discovery order that an employer identify all applicants who had reported marijuana convictions on their job applications. Starbucks Corp. v. Superior Court , 194 Cal. App. 4th 820 (2011). In another victory for privacy, the Court of Appeal in a wrongful-termination case protected from disclosure, via interrogatory answers, personal information that the plaintiff had sought regarding the age, contact information, date of termination, reason for termination of the defendant employer’s former employees, among other types of information. Life Techs. Corp. v. Superior Court, 197 Cal. App. 4th 640, 655-56 (2011) (trial court abused discretion in ordering answers to interrogatories without evaluating whether a compelling need for information outweighed third-party privacy and whether less intrusive means would yield the information sought, without giving sufficient notice affording former employees a simple, reasonable means of objecting to disclosure of personal information, and without providing for protection of any information ultimately disclosed). But the California Supreme Court disapproved of Life Techs. in Williams v. Superior Court, 3 Cal. 5th 531, 557 (2017), stating that “[o]nly obvious invasions of interests fundamental to personal autonomy must be supported by a compelling interest,” leaving plaintiffs and defendants to fight over the compelled disclosure of all but the most private aspects of personal employee information. 58 Belaire-West Landscape, Inc. v. Superior Court , 149 Cal. App. 4th 554 (2007). 59 Id. at 561-62. 60 Id. at 562. 61 Id. (quoting Phillips v. Gemini Moving Specialists , 63 Cal. App. 4th 563, 571 (1998)). 62 Crab Addison, Inc. v. Superior Court , 169 Cal. App. 4th 958 (2008) (employees’ execution of release forms objecting to employer’s disclosure of contact information to third parties did not preclude discovery of contact information in class action against employer for violation of wage and labor laws).