While I was in Alaska running with caribou (alas, vacation is over) the above-entitled case was granted review on the following question:

May an individual be held personally liable for retaliation under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act?

Now, each side of the bar “knows” what the answer to this question, and we’ve probably all written a brief or two on it. I would be more sympathetic to personal liability in cases where the employer corporation was uncapitalized, because otherwise, in most cases, isn’t it duplicative?

Anyway, no matter how much we think we know the answer to this, the judges in the courts I frequent have gone both ways, and I would look forward to a bright line rule.

I’m 0 for infinity predicting California Supreme Court outcomes, but I do not think they will leave the Gentry case undisturbed. California Wage Law has a rundown of the oral arguments, and a prediction, here.

Just a thought: Circuit City has been very aggressive in pushing the limits in employment law, and has taken many cases the distance. Has this, in the end, had a bottom line–or even any non-monetary tangible benefit–effect for them?

Personally, I do not think much of arbitration as a forum for employment claims. I understand many people see it as some kind of way of deterring cases from even appearing, but I’m not sure that captures the psychology of the typical plaintiff.

Anyway, I agree with Wage Law, except I’m not even sure it will be a split decision. I’m not sure how the dynamics of the FLSA (opt-in) would play into this, but in California, I cannot see how this will not be held unconscionable in both ways.