Jensen v. Wells Fargo Bank (Cal. Ct. App. December 5, 2000) The court affirms the obligation of the employer to engage in a two-way process with a disabled employee, in order to try to find a reasonable accomodation. Jensen suffered post traumatic stress after a bank robbery, and could no longer work as a branch manager. She claimed Wells Fargo failed to offer her a non-manager job elsewhere in the organization. The case was dismissed on summary judgment, but the appeals court sent it back, ruling that there was a dispute in the evidence over whether or not WFB had done a thorough job looking for another position for Jensen.

The court set out these rules for determining that an employer has not violated the FEHA by failing to accommodate an employee: "(1) reasonable accommodation was offered and refused; (2) there simply was no vacant position within the employer' s organization for which the disabled employee was qualified and which the disabled employee was capable of performing with or without accommodation; or (3) the employer did everything in its power to find a reasonable accommodation, but the informal, interactive process broke down because the employee failed to engage in discussions in good faith."

D’Sa v. Playhut, Inc. (Cal. Ct. App. December 22, 2000) Employer demanded that the employee sign a confidentiality agreement as a condition of employment. The employee refused to sign, because the agreement contained an anticompetition provision that he contended was illegal under California law. The company insisted he sign, pointing out that the agreement included a "severability" clause, so that if the anti-compete clause was unenforceable, it would drop out of the agreement. Employee still refused to sign, and was fired. The Court of Appeal in Los Angeles held that forcing the employee to sign an unenforceable anti-competition agreement violates public policy, and therefore the termination was unlawful. It makes no difference that the illegal clause would not be enforced, said the court. Forcing the employee to sign it was in itself unlawful.

Hestand v. Saunders (Cal. Ct. App. December 11, 2000) A construction employee made an overtime claim with the Labor Commissioner under pre-1998 overtime regulations (Wage Order 4-89). The Labor Commissioner refused to process the claim, under a long-standing view that none of the pre-1999 Wage Orders covers the on-site construction industry. The employee sued to force the issue. The Labor Commissioner claimed that its interpretation of its own regulation – the Wage Order – could not be challenged in court. The Court of Appeal disagreed, holding that Courts may always review an agency’s interpretation of its own rules. Here, the Court agreed that Wage Order 4-89 was never intended to cover on-site construction, so while the Labor Commissioner got her hand slapped, the Plaintiff went home empty-handed.