Table of authorities

Arthur Karadzhyan · 5 minute read

Revised October 2026

Eighty pieces of writing rest on the cases below. A brief would put this table first; a library can afford to put it last, where it reads as what it is — the load-bearing wall, exposed.

Supreme Court of California

Case	What it stands for, in our voice
Tameny v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (1980) 27 Cal.3d 167	Firing someone for refusing to break the law is a tort, at-will or not.
Foley v. Interactive Data Corp. (1988) 47 Cal.3d 654	Implied contracts can grow from conduct — though read Guz before relying on one.
S.G. Borello & Sons v. Dept. of Industrial Relations (1989) 48 Cal.3d 341	The old multifactor employment test; still the fallback when an ABC exception applies.
Turner v. Anheuser-Busch, Inc. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 1238	Intolerable conditions can make a resignation a firing. The bar is high; the timing decides.
Stevenson v. Superior Court (1997) 16 Cal.4th 880	The four public-policy categories that give Tameny its shape.
Ramirez v. Yosemite Water Co. (1999) 20 Cal.4th 785	“Primarily engaged” is quantitative: count the hours, not the title.
Morillion v. Royal Packing Co. (2000) 22 Cal.4th 575	Compelled travel on the employer’s terms is worked time.
Guz v. Bechtel National, Inc. (2000) 24 Cal.4th 317	The burden-shifting framework — and cold water on implied contracts against signed at-will terms.
Armendariz v. Foundation Health (2000) 24 Cal.4th 83	The floor under employment arbitration: all remedies, real discovery, the employer pays the forum.
Yanowitz v. L’Oréal USA, Inc. (2005) 36 Cal.4th 1028	Adverse action measured by material effect, in the aggregate; reasonable-belief opposition protected.
Murphy v. Kenneth Cole Productions (2007) 40 Cal.4th 1094	The break premium is a wage — three years, not one.
Edwards v. Arthur Andersen LLP (2008) 44 Cal.4th 937	No “narrow restraint” exception: non-competes are void, not trimmed.
Reid v. Google, Inc. (2010) 50 Cal.4th 512	“Stray remarks” are weighed, not filtered.
Martinez v. Combs (2010) 49 Cal.4th 35	More than one entity can employ you at once.
Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Superior Court (2012) 53 Cal.4th 1004	Provide means relieve, release, and permit — not police, and not pretend.
Harris v. City of Santa Monica (2013) 56 Cal.4th 203	“Substantial motivating reason” — mixed motives narrow remedies, not liability.
Mendiola v. CPS Security Solutions (2015) 60 Cal.4th 833	Hours under employer control count — even overnight.
Kilby v. CVS Pharmacy, Inc. (2016) 63 Cal.4th 1	Suitable seating, judged task by task.
Augustus v. ABM Security Services (2016) 2 Cal.5th 257	An on-call rest break is no rest break.
Dynamex Operations West v. Superior Court (2018) 4 Cal.5th 903	The ABC test: employment presumed; the hiring entity proves otherwise, all three prongs.
Troester v. Starbucks Corp. (2018) 5 Cal.5th 829	No de-minimis excuse for minutes that recur every shift.
Gerard v. Orange Coast Memorial (2018) 6 Cal.5th 443	Healthcare meal waivers stand — written, voluntary, revocable.
OTO, L.L.C. v. Kho (2019) 8 Cal.5th 111	Unconscionability lives; how the agreement reached you matters.
Frlekin v. Apple Inc. (2020) 9 Cal.5th 73	The bag check is on the clock.
Donohue v. AMN Services, LLC (2021) 11 Cal.5th 58	Time records showing bad meal periods presume violation; rounding them is over.
Ferra v. Loews Hollywood Hotel (2021) 11 Cal.5th 858	Premiums are paid at the regular rate — bonuses fold in.
Lawson v. PPG Architectural Finishes (2022) 12 Cal.5th 703	Section 1102.6 governs whistleblower claims: contributing factor, then clear-and-convincing. Quoted verbatim in our case note.
Naranjo v. Spectrum Security Services (2022) 13 Cal.5th 93	Break premiums are wages — with wage-statement and waiting-time consequences.
People ex rel. Garcia-Brower v. Kolla’s (2023) 14 Cal.5th 719	A disclosure counts even when the listener already knew.
Adolph v. Uber Technologies (2023) 14 Cal.5th 1104	Arbitrating the individual PAGA claim does not un-aggrieve the employee.
Quach, Huerta, Bailey, Castellanos, Stone, Naranjo II (2024); Hohenshelt, Iloff (2025); Fuentes (2026)	The recent terms’ working set — waiver without prejudice; the gate and the drive; one slur can suffice; Prop 22 stands; public employers sit outside the break statutes and PAGA; good faith meets §226; the fee rule survives, flexibly; wage-law good faith requires actually trying; print you cannot read cannot bind.

Supreme Court of the United States

Case	What it stands for, in our voice
Universal Health Services v. Escobar (2016) 579 U.S. 176	False claims must be material — the lie has to matter to the money.
Morgan v. Sundance, Inc. (2022) 596 U.S. 411	No arbitration-specific prejudice requirement — the root Quach adopted.
Viking River Cruises v. Moriana (2022) 596 U.S. 639	PAGA claims can be split — see Adolph for what survives the split.
Groff v. DeJoy (2023) 600 U.S. 447	Religious accommodation’s “undue hardship” means substantial, not trivial.
Murray v. UBS Securities (2024) 601 U.S. 23	SOX whistleblowers need no proof of retaliatory intent — Lawson’s architecture, federally.
Muldrow v. City of St. Louis (2024) 601 U.S. 346	A discriminatory transfer needs only some harm — the federal bar, lowered.

The verification note

This table is a research aid, not a certification that every citation, quotation, or description has been verified or remains current. Check the published opinion, its procedural context, and subsequent history before relying on it. The preview’s page-by-page legal review remains outstanding.

Related writing: The vocabulary · The clocks, complete · How this site is written

This article states California law as of its revision date and is analysis, not legal advice. Reading this site does not create an attorney-client relationship. Attorney advertising.