×
Wednesday, December 3, 2025

January 2025 California Employment Law Notes - The National Law Review

Plaintiff May Defeat Federal Question Removal With An Amendment To Complaint

Royal Canin USA v. Wullschleger, 604 U.S. ___, 2025 WL 96212 (2025)

In this non-employment-related opinion with important implications for litigation throughout the country, the United States Supreme Court held that after a defendant removes a case from state to federal court based on federal question grounds, the plaintiff may in an amended complaint delete all references to federal law and thereby deprive the federal court of supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims, resulting in a remand back to state court. Since most plaintiffs prefer to litigate their cases in state court, this opinion will likely result in fewer successful removals to federal court by employers.

Disability Discrimination Claims Were Properly Dismissed Though Invasion Of Privacy Claims Survive

Wentworth v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal., 105 Cal. App. 5th 580 (2024)

Blake Wentworth, formerly a professor at the University of California, Berkeley, sued the University for failure to engage in the interactive process and failure to reasonably accommodate an alleged disability in violation of the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), as well as for violating the California Constitution and the Information Practices Act (the “IPA”) (Cal. Civ. Code § 1798, et seq.) by disclosing private information involving Wentworth’s medical history and the investigation of multiple student complaints that had been lodged...



Read Full Story: https://news.google.com/rss/articles/CBMigwFBVV95cUxONXcxN0x5LXlpUjMxSHJYdTRX...