Gagen, McCoy, McMahon, Koss, Markowitz & Fanucci
  • Home
  • About
  • Attorneys
    • Sumita Bhandari
    • Stephen T. Buehl
    • Rachel Margolis Chapman
    • C. Joseph Doherty III
    • Armand M. Estrada
    • Robert M. Fanucci
    • William E. Gagen Jr.
    • Barbara Duval Jewell
    • Charles A. Koss
    • Michael J. Markowitz
    • Aileen Rodriguez Mazanetz
    • Gregory L. McCoy
    • Daniel A. Muller
    • Sarah S. Nix
    • Elizabeth R. Weiss
  • Practice Areas
    • Business And Contract Law
    • Criminal Defense
    • Education Law
    • Intellectual Property
    • Land Use And Real Estate
    • Litigation
    • Tax Law
    • Trusts And Estate Planning
    • Winery And Vineyard Law
  • Developments of Interest
  • Blog
  • Contact
Select Page
NEW CASES OF INTEREST – JANUARY 3, 2020
  1. Home
  2.  » 
  3. Developments of Interest
  4.  » NEW CASES OF INTEREST – JANUARY 3, 2020

NEW CASES OF INTEREST – JANUARY 3, 2020

Wishnev v. The Northwestern Life Insurance Co. (2019) 8 Cal.5th 199.

This is a case decided by the California Supreme Court after a referral from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.  The court found that the provision in Civil Code § 1916-2 prohibiting lenders from assessing compound interest, unless an agreement to that effect is clearly expressed in writing and signed by the party to be charged therewith, does not apply to lenders who are exempt under California Constitution Article XV.  Exempt lenders the court found are not bound by the interest rate provisions otherwise applicable to lenders generally, and Section 1916-2 of the Civil Code prohibiting lenders from assessing compound interest except under certain agreement provisions that may be expressed in writing, does not apply to lenders exempt under Article XV.

Glynn v. Superior Court (2019) 42 Cal.App.5th 47.

Partially reversing a grant of summary judgment in favor of an employer on employee causes of action for discrimination and wrongful termination and violation of public policy, the court held that a lack of animus does not preclude liability for disability discrimination.  In this case the employer’s mistaken belief that a physically disabled employee was unable to work with or without accommodation and thus could be discharged, didn’t result in the employer being protected from potential liability.

New Statutory Issues.

Amendments to Labor Code § 3351 and the addition of Labor Code § 2750.3 seek to codify the Supreme Court’s decision in Dynamex, 4 Cal.5th 903 (2018).  It establishes a presumption that a worker who performs services for hire is an employee unless the hiring entity is able to demonstrate:  a) the person is free from the control and direction of the hiring entity in connection with the performance of the work; b) the person performs work that is outside the usual course of the hiring entity’s business; and c) the person is customarily engaged in an independently established trade, occupation or business.  The statute also exempts certain occupations which include, among others, licensed insurance agent, certain licensed health care professionals, registered securities broker-dealers or investment advisers, direct sales salespersons, real estate licensees, commercial fishermen, barbers and cosmetologists, and other performing work under a contract for professional services with another business entity or under a subcontract in the construction industry.

Additionally, no agreement to settle an employment dispute entered into on or after January 1, 2020, may contain a provision prohibiting, preventing, or otherwise restricting the settling party/employee from obtaining future employment with the employer, finding that such a provision is against public policy and void as a matter of law.

 
Related Attorney(s):
Gregory L. McCoy

Practice Areas

  • Business And Contract Law
  • Criminal Defense
    • Drunk Driving Defense
    • Expungement
    • Juvenile Law
    • Sex Crimes
    • Violent Crimes
  • Education Law
  • Intellectual Property
  • Land Use And Real Estate
  • Litigation
  • Tax Law
  • Trusts And Estate Planning
    • Advance Health Care Directives
    • Financial Powers Of Attorney
    • Forms Of Property Ownership Between Spouses
      • Joint Tenancy Vs Community Property
      • Separate Property And Community Property
      • The Relationship Between Characterization Of Property, Marital Agreements And Estate Planning
      • Ways To Hold Title For Married Couples In California
    • Probate Procedures And Duties Of A Personal Representative
    • Revocable And Irrevocable Trusts
      • Guide For Transfer Of Assets To A Revocable Living Trust
      • Generation Skipping Transfer Tax Trusts (Dynasty Trusts)
      • Special Needs Trusts
      • The Revocable Living Trust
      • Trust Administration
    • Wills
  • Winery And Vineyard Law

Make An Appointment

To Speak With One Our Attorneys

Contact us today and find out how Gagen, McCoy, McMahon, Koss, Markowitz & Fanucci can assist you.

Call Us Now For Additional Information

To schedule an initial consultation, please call us at 925-837-0585. Our firm boasts decades of experience, and we are prepared to begin working for you.

The Law Offices Of Gagen, McCoy, McMahon, Koss, Markowitz & Fanucci 630 San Ramon Valley Blvd Suite 100 Danville, CA 94526

DANVILLE OFFICE

630 San Ramon Valley Blvd
Suite 100
Danville, CA 94526

Phone: 925-837-0585
Fax: 925-838-5985

Map & Directions
The Law Offices of Gagen, McCoy, McMahon, Koss, Markowitz & Fanucci The Offices at Stonebridge 1030 Main Street, Suite 212 St. Helena, CA 94574

ST. HELENA OFFICE

The Offices at Stonebridge
1030 Main Street, Suite 212
St. Helena, CA 94574

Phone: 707-963-0909
Fax: 707-963-5527

Map & Directions
Review Us
  • Follow
  • Follow

© 2021 Gagen, McCoy, McMahon, Koss, Markowitz & Fanucci. All Rights Reserved.

Disclaimer | Site Map | Privacy Policy | Business Development Solutions by FindLaw, part of Thomson Reuters