©2025 Seyfarth Shaw LLP www.seyfarth.com 2025 Cal-Peculiarities | 15 eliminating discrimination on basis of sex, and therefore was subject to strict scrutiny (Court of Appeal). (See § 6.9.) Issues Pending Review in 2025 Before the California Supreme Court This volume reports on California Supreme Court decisions through about July 2025. We expect the Supreme Court to issue several further decisions affecting private employment during 2025: What is the validity of a settlement offer under California Code of Civil Procedure section 998 that contains two options? In Gorobets v. Jaguar Land Rover North America, LLC, 105 Cal. App. 5th 913 (2024), review granted, No. S287946 (Cal. Jan. 15, 2025), the Supreme Court agreed to decide: “Is a settlement offer under Code of Civil Procedure section 998 that contains two options inherently invalid, presumptively invalid, or invalid or partially or entirely valid depending on a separate and independent evaluation of each option?” Can a terminated employee bring a defamation case when the defamation allegedly contributed to the reasons for termination? In Hearn v. Pacific Gas & Electric Co., 108 Cal. App. 5th 301 (2025), review granted, No. S289581 (Cal. May 14, 2025), the Supreme Court agreed to decide: “May a terminated employee bring a defamation claim against a former employer when the defamation allegedly contributed to the reasons for the termination of that employment or must such a claim be pursued under a wrongful discharge theory?” Does the Federal Arbitration Act preempt state statutes regarding payment of arbitration fees and providing for forfeiture of the right to arbitrate? In Hohenshelt v. Superior Court, 99 Cal. App. 5th 1319 (2024), review granted, No. S284498 (Cal. Jun. 12, 2024), the Supreme Court agreed to decide: “Does the Federal Arbitration Act (9 U.S.C. § 1 et seq.) preempt state statutes prescribing the procedures for paying arbitration fees and providing for forfeiture of the right to arbitrate if timely payment is not made by the party who drafted the arbitration agreement and who is required to pay such fees?” (Case argued and submitted on May 21, 2025.) When may an employer invoke a good faith defense to avoid liquidated damages for alleged minimum wage violations, and is there a private right of action to enforce administrative penalties under the Healthy Workplaces, Healthy Families Act? In Iloff v. LaPaille, 80 Cal. App. 5th 427 (2022), review granted, No. S275848 (Cal. Oct. 26, 2022), the Supreme Court agreed to decide: “(1) Must an employer demonstrate that it affirmatively took steps to ascertain whether its pay practices comply with the Labor Code and Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Orders to establish a good faith defense to liquidated damages under Labor Code section 1194.2, subdivision (b)? (2) May a wage claimant prosecute a paid sick leave claim under section 248.5, subdivision (b) of the Healthy Workplaces, Healthy Families Act of 2014 (Lab. Code, § 245 et seq.) in a de novo wage claim trial conducted pursuant to Labor Code section 98.2?” (Case argued and submitted on June 4, 2025.) Does every PAGA lawsuit automatically include both individual and non-individual claims, and may a plaintiff choose to file only a non-individual PAGA claim? In Leeper v. Shipt, Inc., 107 Cal. App. 5th 1001 (2025), review granted, No. S289305 (Cal. Apr. 16, 2025) the Supreme Court agreed to decide: “(1) Does every Private Attorneys General Act (Lab. Code, § 2698 et seq.) (PAGA) action necessarily include both individual and non-individual PAGA claims, regardless of whether the complaint specifically alleges individual claims? (2) Can a plaintiff choose to bring only a non-individual PAGA action?” Does equitable tolling permit the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board to act on a late petition for reconsideration? In Mayor v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd., 104 Cal. App. 5th 713 (2024), review granted, No. S287261 (Cal. Dec. 11, 2024) the Supreme Court agreed to decide: “(1) May the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board apply equitable tolling to act upon a petition for reconsideration beyond the 60-day period provided in Labor Code section 5909, when the Appeals Board did not receive the petition for reconsideration until after the 60-day period has elapsed? (2) Did the Court of Appeal act in excess of
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTkwMTQ4