Advertise on podcast: Bald Legal

In this episode of the Bald Legal Podcast, Drew Levine and Brian Nguyen break down Armendariz v. Foundation Health Psychcare Services, the landmark California Supreme Court decision that changed how employment arbitration agreements are enforced. The case started with discrimination claims brought by two employees, and it ended with a set of protections that still shape employment cases across California today. Under Armendariz, an arbitration agreement has to meet five requirements to be enforceable against an employee: A neutral arbitrator the employer doesn’t get to pick alone Adequate discovery, so employees can get the evidence they need A written decision grounded in the law Access to every remedy the law provides, including punitive and emotional distress damages The employer covers the costs unique to arbitration, including the arbitrator’s fees Drew and Brian explain why these safeguards matter, how arbitration came to favor businesses over individuals, and why the agreement buried in your onboarding paperwork may not hold up as written. Chapters: 0:00 The Hidden Reality of Arbitration Agreements 3:33 Contracts of Adhesion and Insurance Disputes 4:18 The Exorbitant Cost of Private Judges 6:26 Arbitration in the Personal Injury Space 11:11 The Landmark Case That Changed Everything 15:25 The Trap of Onboarding Paperwork 22:04 The Five Safeguards of Armendaris

In this episode of the Bald Legal Podcast, employment attorneys Megan Mackie and Drew Levine explain the difference and why a wrongful termination claim usually needs more than a bad boss or a bad reason. They break down Cotran v. Rollins Hudig Hall International (1998), the California Supreme Court case about a senior executive who was fired over harassment allegations. A jury found the accusations not credible, but the court held that an employer’s honest, careful belief, if it’s based on an adequate investigation, can still count as good cause, even when that belief turns out to be wrong. They also cover how implied employment contracts developed through Pugh v. See’s Candy and Scott v. PG&E. Chapters: 00:00 - Intro and Case Discussion 02:00 - Wrongful Termination Case: Cotran v. Rollins Hudig Hall 09:28 - Case Facts and Allegations 15:00 - Jury’s Decision on Affair Defense 20:27 - Court Reverses Jury’s Wrongful Termination Decision 23:35 - Implied Contracts and Wrongful Termination 27:00 - Contract Breach vs. Wrongful Termination Damages 30:12 - Dissenting Opinion on Employee Protection 32:01 - Good Faith Investigations Checklist 36:34 - Fairness and Investigation Importance 39:22 - Thank You and Next Episode Preview

On this episode of The Bald Legal Podcast, Drew Levine breaks down Guz v. Bechtel National, Inc. (2000), one of the most cited employment cases in California. It shaped how courts decide whether a discrimination claim can go to a jury. After 22 years at Bechtel and a record of good reviews, John Guz was laid off at 49 during a company restructuring. Bechtel said it was about reorganization and a shrinking workload. Guz said it was about his age. Chapters: 00:00 - Proving age discrimination without direct evidence 03:32 - Layoff and age discrimination claim 07:06 - Legal framework for age discrimination 10:25 - Burden shifting in discrimination cases 13:22 - Employer explanations and pretext 16:09 - Summary judgment and motive inference 20:19 - Insufficient evidence for claim 23:19 - Burden of proof and jury trial 26:48 - Summary judgment protects system

Join host Drew Levine of Levine Labor Law as he sits down with attorney Lauren Grochow to discuss the realities of labor law. This conversation highlights the impact of the Dynamex case in California, which significantly redefined the criteria for classifying individuals as independent contractors. In this episode of the Bald Legal Podcast, we welcome Lauren Grochow, owner of Grochow Law, to provide her expert perspective on the legal landscape. This conversation explores how the law is intended to work for employees and the practical application of employment rights in everyday situations. Whether you are navigating a complex workplace issue or simply want to understand the legal protections available to you, this discussion sheds light on the advocate's role in the labor law process. We break down the professional insights necessary to ensure you are informed about your legal rights when dealing with employer disputes. Chapters: 00:00 - Dynamex Case: Worker Misclassification Explained 03:31 - Employer Savings Through Misclassification 06:24 - Contractor vs. Employee: Key Differences 09:27 - Dynamex Drivers Reclassified for Savings 12:44 - Drivers Sue Over Contractor Status 15:38 - The ABC Test for Worker Classification 18:53 - Control, Business, and Competition Factors 20:55 - Legislature Adopts ABC Test, Defines Exceptions 24:00 - Professional and Performing Arts Exemptions 26:39 - Borello Test, Gig Workers, and Protections 29:28 - Misclassification Penalties and Remedies 31:32 - Employer Penalties, Lawsuits, and Fees

In this episode, Drew Levine and guest John Barber delve into a significant California Supreme Court ruling concerning mixed-motive employment terminations. The case, involving a probationary bus driver with performance issues and alleged pregnancy discrimination, highlights the complexities of balancing an employer's right to address poor performance with anti-discrimination laws. Whether you are just starting out or are further along in your practice, the lessons on building a foundation in employment law are universal. We reflect on the collaborative relationships that shape our careers and the importance of learning from those who have paved the way before us. Subscribe to the Bald Legal Podcast for weekly insights into the practice of law, and leave a comment sharing a piece of professional advice that changed your career. 00:00:05 - Podcast Intro and Case Preview 00:03:00 - Mixed-Motive Termination Cases 00:06:31 - Attorney Fees and Retaliation 00:09:45 - Arbitrator's Ruling and Risk 00:13:00 - Fees Drive Settlement Value 00:16:08 - Seven-Figure Fee Application 00:18:53 - Pregnancy Discrimination Discussion 00:22:02 - Performance vs. Discriminatory Comments 00:24:49 - Court's Role in Legal Outcomes 00:28:06 - Motivating Factor and Remedies 00:31:01 - Attorney's Fees: May vs. Will 00:33:30 - Advice for Employees 00:37:23 - Lawyer's Focus: Justice

How did a simple apple pie become key evidence in a workplacediscrimination lawsuit? In this episode, employment attorneys Drew Levine (Levine Labor Law) and Alexander Vialy break down Roby v. McKesson Corporation, a case where a supervisor's cruelty, from excluding an employee from office treats to mocking her medical condition, led to a jury verdict holding both the company and the supervisor personally liable. In this episode, we unpack disparate treatment vs. disparate impact, how harassment and discrimination can overlap, and what this case means for employee rights today.Chapters:00:00 - Apple Pie Case and Legal Nuances09:12 - McKesson, Roby, and Panic Attacks12:01 - Disparate Impact vs. Treatment15:00 - Policy Neutrality and Workplace Realities18:26 - Unfair Termination of Disabled Workers20:51 - Medication Side Effects and Mistreatment24:04 - Disability Termination and Discrimination27:19 - Discrimination and Harassment Simultaneously30:17 - Supervisor Liability for Claims33:23 - Broadening Law for Fair Civil Rights

In this episode, employment attorney Drew Levine, joined by personal injury attorney Connor Traut, break down one of the most jaw-dropping cases in California employment law: Yanowitz v. L'Oréal USA. A senior executive orders a regional manager to fire a top-performing sales associate for one reason: she wasn't considered attractive enough. She refuses, and what happens next reshapes how California courts define retaliation and "protected opposition" under FEHA, even when you never say the word "discrimination." We dig into what "reasonable belief" really means, why conduct can speak louder than legal buzzwords, and how L'Oréal ended up paying the price for punishing an employee who simply said no. Chapters: 00:05 - Introduction: Yanowitz v. L'Oréal 03:23 - Law, Deterrence, and Workplace Protections 07:00 - Documentation and Legal Evolution 10:30 - Documenting Harm and Legal Changes 14:10 - Retaliation for Refusing Illegal Orders 17:21 - Attorneys Argue Facts and Credibility 20:21 - L'Oréal's Risky Appeal and Exposure 23:50 - Employment Law and Email's Impact 26:39 - Reasonable Belief Protects Employees 30:11 - Legal Paths for Victims Seeking Justice

In this episode of Bald Legal, employment attorneys Drew Levine (Levine Labor Law) and Alexander Vialy break down Tameny v. Atlantic Richfield Co., the landmark case that fundamentally reshaped California employment law. When an ARCO employee was fired for refusing to participate in an illegal price-fixing scheme, his refusal sparked a legal revolution that established the right to sue for wrongful termination in violation of public policy. In this episode, we unpack the limits of at-will employment, how tort law stepped in where contract law failed, and why standing up against illegal employer demands remains a protected right today. Chapters: 00:06 - Wrongful termination and ARCO case 03:21 - Employment law evolution and moral wrongdoing 06:52 - California labor code and Tameny case 09:33 - Gordon Tameny's price fixing role 11:41 - Tameny's wrongful discharge suit 15:00 - Contract vs. tort in wrongful termination 18:29 - Termination violating public policy 22:00 - Whistleblower protection and fair employment 25:15 - California at-will employment explained 27:56 - At-will employment not absolute

Guz v. Bechtel National, Inc.