California Employment Law Decisions: October 2026

Nine published California Court of Appeal decisions in October 2026 addressed forced arbitration, harassment liability, PAGA, and whether workers can owe an employer's costs.

At a glance

• Molina v. Triumph Residential Services: requiring an arbitration agreement to get the job is unlawful when Labor Code 432.6 applies and the Federal Arbitration Act does not.
• Chin v. DoorDash: waiting to raise a known sexual harassment claim until after arbitration is ordered can waive the right to stay in court.
• Castillo v. Belkorp: in the Fifth District, a PAGA case with only nonindividual claims stayed in court. Other courts disagree.
• Doe v. Wells Fargo: strict liability for harassment applies when the harasser is your supervisor, not merely someone who supervises other people.
• Luna v. Top Dawg Entertainment: typing a pseudonym on a complaint does not itself stop the other side from naming you in a public response.
• San Diego-Tomas v. Aspire Bakeries: a winning FEHA employer does not get costs unless the court finds the case was frivolous, unreasonable, or groundless.
• Smith v. Burbank Unified School District: unpaid leave was a reasonable religious accommodation on this record, based on the hardship evidence.
• Cruz v. City of Hermosa Beach: firing an officer for missing a vaccine requirement was not POBRA punitive action. The retaliation analysis is not published precedent.
• Civil Rights Department v. City of Torrance: an employer that defends its criminal-history assessments can waive privilege over those documents.

Key takeaways

• An employer cannot require an arbitration agreement as a condition of employment for certain California claims when the Federal Arbitration Act does not apply. Molina v. Triumph Residential Services explains that rule.
• If you have a sexual harassment claim and an arbitration agreement, raise the federal Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act early. Waiting until after a court orders arbitration can waive it. See Chin v. DoorDash.
• Strict liability for harassment applies when the harasser is your supervisor, not merely someone who supervises other people. See Doe v. Wells Fargo.
• A prevailing FEHA employer is not automatically entitled to costs. The court must find the case was frivolous, unreasonable, or groundless. See San Diego-Tomas v. Aspire Bakeries.
• In the Fifth District, a worker may bring a PAGA case that seeks only nonindividual penalties, and those claims were not sent to arbitration. Other courts disagree. See Castillo v. Belkorp.

This is the October 2026 installment of a monthly series. Each month we summarize published California appellate employment decisions in plain English, link the official opinion, and write a deeper guide when the ruling is useful to workers. The previous installment is the August and September 2026 roundup. Future months will use this same roundup structure: a short summary of the month, an at-a-glance list, key takeaways, a case-by-case explanation, and practical steps. Deep-dive posts keep a question-style direct answer. Roundups do not.

Starpoint Law was not counsel in any of these cases. The summaries below describe what the opinions say. They are not legal advice.

Arbitration, PAGA, and the EFAA

Molina v. Triumph Residential Services, Inc. (Second District, Division Four, October 22, 2026)

Tiffany Diane Molina filed a class action alleging wage-and-hour violations and unfair business practices. Triumph asked the court to send her individual claims to arbitration. Triumph told the court California law applied, not the Federal Arbitration Act. A company vice president said the arbitration agreement was part of hiring and onboarding. Triumph argued Molina could accept the agreement, try to negotiate out of it, or look for other work.

The Court of Appeal affirmed the order denying arbitration. Labor Code section 432.6 makes it illegal to require an applicant or employee to give up a court forum for FEHA or Labor Code claims as a condition of employment. The court held that each of Triumph's three options violated that statute. Sign-or-leave is a condition of employment. Requiring someone to negotiate out, or to take other affirmative steps to keep the right to go to court, is also treated as a condition of employment. Because the parties agreed the agreement was not enforceable under the Federal Arbitration Act, the usual California rule applied: an unlawfully formed contract is not enforced. The court did not decide when the Act preempts section 432.6.

For workers: a signature line that says the agreement was voluntary does not end the inquiry. Read our guide, Can my California employer make me sign an arbitration agreement? For other limits on arbitration, see Can your employer force you into arbitration?

Official opinion, Molina v. Triumph Residential Services, Inc., B350252 (published).

Chin v. DoorDash, Inc. (Second District, Division Eight, October 5, 2026)

Andrew Chin sued DoorDash in 2024 over parental-leave retaliation and related claims. He did not plead sexual harassment. DoorDash moved to compel arbitration. Chin's written opposition did not mention harassment or the Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act. At the hearing, after a tentative ruling for arbitration, he said he would want leave to add a sexual harassment claim to stay in court. The trial court ordered arbitration. Chin later told the Court of Appeal he had left the harassment claim out for strategic purposes. He added a sex-based harassment claim in arbitration months later, then filed a second lawsuit and invoked the federal statute. The trial court pulled the claims back into court.

The Court of Appeal reversed and directed the trial court to compel arbitration. It held that ordinary waiver rules apply, and that strategically withholding a known harassment claim, then not invoking the statute while opposing the motion to compel, was waiver by clear and convincing evidence. The court did not decide whether the harassment allegations were enough to trigger the statute. Acting Presiding Justice Wiley dissented. He would have treated the delay as a litigation mistake, not a deliberate waiver.

For workers: if the facts support a sexual harassment claim, raise the statute in the complaint or in the opposition to arbitration, before the court orders arbitration. Read why delay can waive the right to stay out of arbitration, and our overview of sexual harassment claims and forced arbitration.

Official opinion, Chin v. DoorDash, Inc., B348844 (published).

Castillo v. Belkorp AG, LLP (Fifth District, October 23, 2026)

Steven Castillo filed a Private Attorneys General Act case that sought only nonindividual penalties, meaning penalties for other aggrieved employees, not his own individual PAGA claim. He had signed an arbitration agreement when he was hired. Belkorp moved to compel arbitration and argued every PAGA action must include both individual and nonindividual claims. The trial court denied the motion.

The Fifth District affirmed. It declined to follow Leeper v. Shipt, Inc., which is pending in the California Supreme Court, and held that an aggrieved employee may bring only nonindividual PAGA claims. That reading still applies under the PAGA amendments effective July 1, 2024. Those amendments require the employee to have personally experienced each alleged Labor Code violation within the one-year limitations period. They do not require the employee to plead an individual PAGA claim. The court also held that nonindividual PAGA claims are not subject to arbitration.

For workers: this is a Fifth District decision, and other Courts of Appeal have disagreed. Do not assume a headless PAGA case will stay in court in every county. Read Can I file a headless PAGA claim in California? Wage claims are discussed on our wage and hour page.

Official opinion, Castillo v. Belkorp AG, LLP, F090527 (published).

Harassment and court filings

Doe v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (Second District, Division Four, October 5, 2026)

Jane Doe sued Wells Fargo for sexual harassment under the Fair Employment and Housing Act after conduct by a coworker during a business trip. She argued the bank was strictly liable because the coworker supervised other employees, even though he did not supervise her. The trial court granted summary judgment. It found no strict liability because he was not her supervisor, and it also found the bank was not negligent because it took prompt corrective action. On appeal, she did not preserve the negligence or ratification theories.

The Court of Appeal affirmed. An employer is strictly liable for sexual harassment by a supervisor only when that person is the plaintiff's supervisor and is acting in a supervisory capacity when the harassment occurs. The court did not limit that rule to a direct boss. Someone who supervises other employees, but not the plaintiff, is not a basis for strict liability. Because the negligence theory was forfeited, the court did not decide whether the bank's response was adequate.

For workers: write down who controlled your schedule, evaluations, pay, or job status, and report harassment in writing. Those facts decide which liability rule applies. Read who counts as your supervisor and our sexual harassment page.

Official opinion, Doe v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., B344642 (published).

Luna v. Top Dawg Entertainment, LLC (Second District, Division Two, October 8, 2026)

Two women sued a record label and related individuals, using pseudonyms, and alleged sexual assault, sexual harassment, and unpaid work. They had not asked the court for permission to proceed anonymously. After a press release named them, they added a doxing claim. The trial court denied an anti-SLAPP motion. The Court of Appeal reversed and directed the trial court to strike the doxing claim.

The court held the press release was protected activity and that the fair report privilege covered the accurate statement of who filed the lawsuit. Without a statute that allows anonymity, a plaintiff who wants to proceed under a pseudonym must file that way and move for permission. No such motion was pending when the names were disclosed, so no court order barred the disclosure. The opinion did not decide the assault, harassment, or pay allegations.

For workers: typing a pseudonym on a complaint does not itself keep your name out of a public response. If anonymity matters, ask the court for an order promptly. The underlying harassment claim is a separate issue. See our sexual harassment page.

Official opinion, Luna v. Top Dawg Entertainment, LLC, B347645 (published).

FEHA costs, religion, and public employment

San Diego-Tomas v. Aspire Bakeries, LLC (First District, Division Four, filed October 2, 2026, published October 23, 2026)

Cecilia San Diego-Tomas sued for FEHA discrimination and retaliation, wrongful discharge, and breach of contract. The trial court granted summary judgment for the employer. She did not appeal that loss. She appealed a later award of $15,397.96 in costs. The amended judgment confirmed the costs because she had not timely challenged the employer's cost memorandum.

The Court of Appeal reversed the cost award and sent that issue back. Under Government Code section 12965(c)(6), a prevailing FEHA defendant does not get fees or costs unless the court finds the action was frivolous, unreasonable, or groundless when brought, or the plaintiff kept litigating after it clearly became so. A cost memorandum is not a substitute for that finding, so the employee did not have to challenge it to preserve the issue. The trial court must decide whether the employer should be allowed to file a late motion and, if so, whether any costs should be awarded. The court did not decide how costs would be split if some claims were not FEHA claims.

For workers: losing a FEHA case does not automatically mean you owe the employer's costs. It also does not mean costs are impossible. Read Do I have to pay my employer's costs if I lose a FEHA case?

Official opinion, San Diego-Tomas v. Aspire Bakeries, LLC, A175977 (published).

Smith v. Burbank Unified School District (Second District, Division Eight, filed October 7, 2026, modified October 22, 2026)

Douglas Smith, a chemistry teacher, requested a religious exemption from the district's COVID-19 vaccine requirement for employees. The district placed unvaccinated teachers on unpaid leave. Smith sued for religious discrimination, failure to prevent discrimination, and retaliation under FEHA. The trial court granted summary judgment. It found he proved a prima facie case, and that unpaid leave was the only reasonable accommodation that did not impose an undue hardship.

The Court of Appeal affirmed. Unpaid leave was a reasonable accommodation on this record because it removed the conflict between his religious practice and the vaccine requirement and left him able to return when the mandate ended. He did not present evidence disputing the district's evidence of operational and safety burdens. The October 22 modification added the statutory definition of undue hardship and explained that a regulation about segregating an employee comes from the religious dress and grooming rules. It did not change the judgment. The parties bear their own costs on appeal.

For workers: unpaid leave is not automatically a lawful accommodation, and it is not automatically unlawful. The result turned on the evidence of hardship. Check deadlines on our California employment claim deadline page if a religious accommodation was refused.

Official opinion, Smith v. Burbank Unified School District, B347288 (published; modification order attached).

Cruz v. City of Hermosa Beach (Second District, Division Five, October 15, 2026)

Jonathan Cruz, a police officer, was fired after the city denied his religious exemption and he did not comply with a COVID-19 vaccination requirement that applied to all city employees. He alleged the firing was punitive action that required an administrative appeal under the Public Safety Officers Procedural Bill of Rights Act, and he also alleged whistleblower and FEHA retaliation. The trial court granted summary judgment.

The Court of Appeal affirmed. In the published portion, it held that POBRA does not regulate employment qualifications. The firing resulted from failure to meet a condition of employment, not from an investigation of misconduct or poor performance. The retaliation analysis is in portions of the opinion that are not certified for publication, so those portions are not citable precedent. The published disposition affirms the judgment. Costs on appeal tied to the non-FEHA claims were awarded to the city. The court did not award FEHA costs because it made no finding that the FEHA claim was frivolous.

For workers: a vaccine mandate case can raise different statutes depending on the job. POBRA is a peace-officer procedure statute. FEHA religious-accommodation claims are a separate theory, as in Smith. Retaliation claims are discussed on our whistleblower page.

Official opinion, Cruz v. City of Hermosa Beach, B343086 (certified for partial publication).

Civil Rights Department v. City of Torrance (Second District, Division One, filed September 29, 2026, published October 27, 2026)

The Civil Rights Department is investigating whether Torrance violated the Fair Chance Act, Government Code section 12952, in how it assessed job applicants with criminal histories. The city refused to produce individualized-assessment documents and claimed attorney-client and work-product privilege. The trial court ordered production. The Court of Appeal affirmed.

The court held that the city waived any privilege by defending the adequacy of those assessments. An employer that says it complied with the statute puts the assessments at issue, because the statute requires a real, individualized look at the offense, the time that has passed, and the job. The opinion does not decide whether Torrance violated the Act. The investigation continues.

For workers: a conviction history does not by itself bar hiring. If you were rejected, ask whether the employer did an individualized assessment. Background-check rights are covered in our employment background check guide.

Official opinion, Civil Rights Department v. City of Torrance, B352855 (published).

What this means for you

These decisions do not all point the same way. Some make it harder for an employer to force a case into arbitration. Others reject an employee's theory on the record in that case. Use them as a map, then apply them to your own documents and dates.

1. Save the paperwork. Keep the arbitration agreement, handbook, offer letter, and any email that says signing was required.
2. Say the harassment facts early. If you want a court instead of arbitration, do not hold a sexual harassment claim back until after a judge orders arbitration.
3. Identify who supervised you. A title is not enough. Note who set your schedule, evaluated you, or controlled your pay.
4. Track deadlines. Use the deadline checker for FEHA, wage, and retaliation claims. Several of these cases were decided on procedure, not on a trial.
5. Ask about fees before you file. Our employment lawyer cost guide explains Starpoint Law's contingency agreement. If we don't win, you owe Starpoint Law nothing: no attorney fee and no case costs.

The information on this website is not legal advice. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.

Talk with Starpoint Law. Call 310-424-9971 or request a free consultation. Starpoint Law is a California-only plaintiff's employment and personal injury firm with offices in Century City and Sherman Oaks. If we don't win, you owe Starpoint Law nothing: no attorney fee and no case costs.