Labor Code Regulations for Minors in the Entertainment Industry

Useful Resources for Labor Code Regulations for Minors in the Entertainment Industry

Recent Rulings on Labor Code Regulations for Minors in the Entertainment Industry

TABITHA JOINER VS CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.

If every minor change in working conditions or trivial action were a materially adverse action then any action that an irritable, chip-on-the-shoulder employee did not like would form the basis of a discrimination suit. The plaintiff must show the employer's ... actions had a detrimental and substantial effect on the plaintiff's employment.” (McRae, supra, 142 Cal.App.4th at 386–387.)

  • Hearing

    Jan 21, 2021

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

REBECCA DUCHSHERER VS RESORT VACATIONS, INC.

(Walt Disney Parks & Resorts U.S., Inc. v. Superior Court (2018) 21 Cal.App.5th 872, 878.) Based on the above circumstances, the court determines that Defendant did not waive its right to seek a change of venue. Additionally, Plaintiff is estopped by its conduct from asserting the motion is untimely. (Cuadros v.

  • Hearing

    Jan 11, 2021

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

KURT OLDMAN, ET AL. VS TYLER BATES, ET AL.

The Cross-Complaint alleges that Bates suffered reputational damage when he was “forced to explain to the studio and director why one of the people he hired was unwilling to sign customary documents unless the studio altered its arrangement with Bates.” Cross-Compl. ¶ 34.

  • Hearing

    Oct 07, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

SILVA VS. THE WALT DISNEY COMPANY

Defendants The Walt Disney Company and Walt Disney Parks & Resorts U.S., Inc. who are named in the Complaint are not identified as Plaintiff’s employer in the First Charge. (Cole v. Antelope Valley Union High School Dist. (1996) 47 Cal.App.4th 1505 [“We conclude section 12960 clearly mandates that aggrieved persons set forth in their DFEH complaint the names of the persons alleged to have committed the unlawful discrimination.

  • Hearing

    Oct 01, 2020

NORMAN COLAVINCENZO V. SHELTERBOX USA, INC., ET AL.

Cause of action for violation of Labor Code section 970.

  • Hearing

    Sep 28, 2020

DANIEL J ORISKOVICH AND KATHERINE M ORISKOVICH

There is one minor child of the marriage, Madison b. 4/10/2003.

  • Hearing

    Aug 28, 2020

  • Judge Donna Geck
  • County

    Santa Barbara County, CA

DANIEL J ORISKOVICH AND KATHERINE M ORISKOVICH

There is one minor child of the marriage, Madison b. 4/10/2003.

  • Hearing

    Aug 28, 2020

  • Judge Donna Geck
  • County

    Santa Barbara County, CA

DRAKE KENNEDY, ET AL. VS BRIAN KENNEDY, ET AL.

The Company only began recording and documenting the work of the Receiver’s professionals after the Receiver’s weekly reports began to contain many factual misrepresentations about the conduct of Regency staff. Id. The Receiver’s claim that Ramer failed to complete work by his December 31, 2019 deadline is false. Berardi Decl., ¶18. Ramer and Berardi worked throughout the holidays attempting to comply with the demands of the Receiver. Id. The only full day they took off was Christmas Day itself.

  • Hearing

    Aug 27, 2020

SANSANAYE LEONG ARSENESCU VS COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS OF

Warner Brothers Television Productions (2006) 38 Cal.4th 264, 278–279 [42 Cal. Rptr. 3d 2, 132 P.3d 211].) Moreover, the jury could infer, based on the discrimination evidence, that supervisor Schoener's hostility was “because of … [Roby's] medical condition.” (§ 12940, subd. (j)(1), italics added.)

  • Hearing

    Aug 19, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

KIMBERLY DOOLIN VS MANTECA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

D074988) 2020 WL 2394728, Willis argued, among other things, that his statute of limitations for filing his Government Claim was equitably tolled by his retaliation complaint to the Labor Commissioner, rendering his government tort claim timely. (Willis, supra, 2020 WL 2394728, at *4.)

  • Hearing

    Aug 04, 2020

NATASHA THOMPSON ET AL VS COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ET AL

Factual Background Plaintiffs allege on Thursday, August 31, 2016, “just before the long Labor Day weekend, 4-year-old non-verbal, special education student, developmentally delayed Minor Plaintiff J.G. was pulled by his legs by a fellow student from and fell on his butt at school and J.G. sustained a left humeral fracture. On Monday, after Labor Day, 9/2/2016, the radiologist at Orthopedic Children’s Institute (“OCI”) in downtown Los Angeles, diagnosed J.G.’s fracture as ‘accidental.’

  • Hearing

    Jul 28, 2020

CHAWONDA WASHINGTON VS DAVITA, INC. ET AL

Labor Code section 1102.5, subdivision (b) defines the protected activity for whistleblowing.

  • Hearing

    Jul 09, 2020

JEFFREY BARR VS ACTION SALES & METAL CO INC ET AL

Walt Disney Co. (1993) 19 Cal.App.4th 201, 216 for the proposition that “[p]romises too vague to be enforced will not support a fraud claim any more than they will one in contract.” For the reasons discussed above, a triable issue of material fact exists as to whether the terms of the contract are too vague to be enforced. Defendants have not demonstrated entitlement to summary adjudication as to this issue.

  • Hearing

    Jun 23, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

LUMINA V. UMINA

Malkerson, 401 U.S. 985, 91 S.Ct. 1231, 28 L.Ed.2d 527 (1971) (summarily affirming a one-year residency requirement for in-state tuition at state universities). ¶ Our observation that “minor restrictions on travel simply do not amount to the denial of a fundamental right,” Town of Southold, 477 F.3d at 54 (internal quotation marks omitted), is consistent with the Supreme Court's jurisprudence, cf. Miller v.

  • Hearing

    Jun 12, 2020

LUMINA V. UMINA

Malkerson, 401 U.S. 985, 91 S.Ct. 1231, 28 L.Ed.2d 527 (1971) (summarily affirming a one-year residency requirement for in-state tuition at state universities). ¶ Our observation that “minor restrictions on travel simply do not amount to the denial of a fundamental right,” Town of Southold, 477 F.3d at 54 (internal quotation marks omitted), is consistent with the Supreme Court's jurisprudence, cf. Miller v.

  • Hearing

    Jun 12, 2020

JOSHUA MCDONOUGH VS MRS GOOCHS NATURAL FOOD MARKETS INC ET A

Labor Code section 98.6 prohibits retaliation for filing “a bona fide complaint or claim . . . under the jurisdiction of the Labor Commissioner.” (Labor Code § 98.6(a).) Labor Code section 1102.5 prohibits retaliation for Once an employer presents a nonretaliatory reason for the discharge, “[t]he central issue is and should remain whether the evidence as a whole supports a reasoned inference that the challenged action was the product of discriminatory or retaliatory animus.

  • Hearing

    Feb 14, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

KAISER FOUNDATION HOSPITALS VS PALOMAR HEALTH

Walt Disney Pictures, (“Wind Dancer”) (2017) 10 Cal. App. 5th 56, 78 (“notwithstanding a provision in a written agreement that precludes oral modification, the parties may, by their words or conduct, waive contractual rights”). Other courts apply equitable estoppel and waiver principles to prevent a party from escaping the consequences of its own conduct. Wagner v. Glendale Adventist Med. Ctr., (1989) 216 Cal.

  • Hearing

    Oct 03, 2019

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

JANE DOE D.M. VS PASADENA HOSPITAL ASSOCIATION, LTD., ET AL.

On November 24, 2010, Plaintiff went into labor and arrived at Hospital. (Id., ¶¶28-29.) She alleges that while her child’s head was already crowning and coming out, Dr. Sutton cut Plaintiff’s perineum deeply with scissors and sewed her back up. (Id., ¶¶29-30.) Plaintiff alleges that she then experienced immense pain and pushed stool pieces passing through her vagina. (Id., ¶¶31, 34, 35.) She then saw Dr.

  • Hearing

    Jul 26, 2019

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

XXXXXXXXX ET AL VS TRIPLE HOME CARE AND ADULT SERVICES INC

Sony Pictures Entertainment, Inc. (2005) 129 Cal. App. 4th 1133, 1144 (2005), quoting Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Thurston (1985) 469 U.S. 111, 121 [“the McDonnell Douglas test is inapplicable where the plaintiff presents direct evidence of discrimination.”.) Direct evidence is evidence which proves a fact without inference or presumption. (Trop, supra, 129 Cal.App.4th at 1145.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 15, 2019

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

MARTHA ORTIZ VS THE WALT DISNEY COMPANY ET AL

The Walt Disney Company, et al. MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR, ALTERNATIVELY, SUMMARY ADJUDICATION OF ISSUES MOVING PARTY: Defendants The Walt Disney Company, Walt Disney Studios d/b/a Walt Disney Pictures, and Walt Disney Parks and Resorts U.S., Inc.

  • Hearing

    May 07, 2019

ADELINA DELGADO ET AL VS CITY OF PICO RIVERA ET AL

The time and labor required for this litigation appears to justify the fees requested from counsel. Additionally, the risk of loss bore by counsel in relation to the contingency fee agreement present in this matter suggests the fees requested by counsel are warranted. The court finds plaintiffs’ counsel’s request for a higher award is justified. Thus, the $466,620.00 in attorney’s fees sought by counsel is justified on the current record.

  • Hearing

    Apr 25, 2019

ADELINA DELGADO ET AL VS CITY OF PICO RIVERA ET AL

The time and labor required for this litigation appears to justify the fees requested from counsel. Additionally, the risk of loss bore by counsel in relation to the contingency fee agreement present in this matter suggests the fees requested by counsel are warranted. The court finds plaintiffs’ counsel’s request for a higher award is justified. Thus, the $466,620.00 in attorney’s fees sought by counsel is justified on the current record.

  • Hearing

    Apr 16, 2019

FRANK PRECIADO VS CORONADO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

Warner Brothers Television Productions (2006) 38 Cal.4th 264, 278–279. Claims for "harassment focuses on situations in which the social environment of the workplace becomes intolerable because the harassment (whether verbal, physical, or visual) communicates an offensive message to the harassed employee." Roby v. McKesson Corp. (2009) 47 Cal.4th 686, 706.

  • Hearing

    Apr 11, 2019

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

TANDEKA MCCANN VS COMMUNITY ACTION COMMISSION OF SANTA BARBARA COUNTY

As determined by CAC, the recording was in violation of CAC’s policies and procedures (DSS, undisputed fact 32) and McCann was terminated (DSS, undisputed facts 34-35). The description of the video of a “partially nude” child is identified specifically by CAC as a material fact. (DSS, fact 33.) There is a triable issue of fact as to whether the child who was video recorded was “partially nude” or fully clothed. For example, McCann testified at her deposition: “Q.

  • Hearing

    Apr 05, 2019

  • Judge Donna Geck
  • County

    Santa Barbara County, CA

JONATHAN DEL ARROZ V. S.F. SCIENCE FICTION CONVENTIONS, INC.

Civil Code § 51.7 broadly provides that “all persons have the right to be free from violence and intimidation by threat of violence based on, among other things, race, religion, ancestry, national origin, political affiliation, sex, or position in a labor dispute.” (Stamps v. Sup. Ct. (2006) 136 Cal.App.4th 1441, 1445.)

  • Hearing

    Feb 21, 2019

1 2 3     last » 

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

Please wait a moment while we load this page.