# Rose Law APC: Working Hard for Working People®

> Labor and employment attorneys for employees, labor organizations, small business employers, and professional licensees throughout California

Generated by Yoast SEO v27.8, this is an llms.txt file, meant for consumption by LLMs.

## Pages
- [Blog](https://joeroselaw.com/blog/)
- [Training](https://joeroselaw.com/juridio/)
- [Privacy Policy](https://joeroselaw.com/privacy/)
- [Terms and Conditions](https://joeroselaw.com/terms/)
- [My Account](https://joeroselaw.com/my-account/)

## Posts
- [Responding to Employee Records Requests Under California Law](https://joeroselaw.com/2025/12/responding-to-employee-records-requests-under-california-law/): Requests for employee records are common in California and are often an early sign of a potential employment dispute\. These requests may come directly from a current or former employee or from an attorney representing the employee\. Because California law grants employees specific rights to access employment records and imposes strict deadlines and penalties for noncompliance, employers must respond carefully, accurately, and on time\.
- [Husband v\. Target Corporation: California Court Clarifies When an Employer Is Deemed to Know About an Employee's Disability](https://joeroselaw.com/2026/06/husband-v-target-corporation-california-court-clarifies-when-an-employer-is-deemed-to-know-about-an-employees-disability/): Employers cannot accommodate disabilities they do not know exist\. Yet workplace disputes often arise when an employee experiences symptoms of a medical condition without formally disclosing a diagnosis\. A recent California Court of Appeal decision examined where the line should be drawn between what an employer actually knows and what it can reasonably be expected to infer\. In Husband v\. Target Corporation \(2026\) \_\_\_ Cal\.App\.5th \_\_\_, the California Court of Appeal affirmed summary judgment in favor of Target, holding that evidence of unusual behavior, emotional outbursts, and concerns about an employee's well\-being did not establish that the employer knew or should have known the employee suffered from bipolar disorder\. The decision provides important guidance for employers and employees navigating disability discrimination and accommodation issues under California law\.
- [Supreme Court Says Local Delivery Drivers May Fall Within FAA Transportation Worker Exemption Even Without Crossing State Lines](https://joeroselaw.com/2026/06/supreme-court-says-local-delivery-drivers-may-fall-within-faa-transportation-worker-exemption-even-without-crossing-state-lines/): The U\.S\. Supreme Court’s unanimous decision in Flowers Foods, Inc\. v\. Brock continues the Court’s recent trend of narrowing the reach of the Federal Arbitration Act \(“FAA”\) in disputes involving workers who help move goods through interstate commerce\. In a decision with potentially significant consequences for employers that rely on arbitration agreements, the Court held that a worker can qualify for the FAA’s transportation worker exemption even if the worker never personally crosses state lines and never directly interacts with vehicles that do\.
- [California Court of Appeal Throws Out $43 Million Wage\-and\-Hour Judgment After Nearly Two Decades of Litigation](https://joeroselaw.com/2026/06/california-court-of-appeal-throws-out-43-million-wage-and-hour-judgment-after-nearly-two-decades-of-litigation/): Cortina v\. North American Title Company represents one of the most significant California wage\-and\-hour class action decisions issued in 2026\. In a sweeping opinion, the California Court of Appeal reversed a judgment exceeding $43 million and ordered decertification of employee classes after concluding the case had become unmanageable and was tried using procedures that deprived the employer of its right to litigate key defenses\. The decision highlights an important issue in California employment litigation: when a class action grows so large and fact\-intensive that classwide procedures can no longer fairly resolve individual liability questions\.
- [When Freight Brokers Choose Unsafe Trucking Companies: The Supreme Court’s Decision in Montgomery v\. Caribe Transport II, LLC](https://joeroselaw.com/2026/05/when-freight-brokers-choose-unsafe-trucking-companies-the-supreme-courts-decision-in-montgomery-v-caribe-transport-ii-llc/): A serious truck crash can raise difficult questions about responsibility\. The driver may have caused the collision\. The trucking company may have hired or supervised the driver\. But what about the freight broker that selected the trucking company in the first place?

## Media
- [Big Rig On the Road](https://joeroselaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/05/big-rig-on-the-road.png)
- [FAA Arbitration Delegation Clause](https://joeroselaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/05/faa-arbitration-delegation-clause.png)
- [Human Trafficking](https://joeroselaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/05/human-trafficking.png)
- [COVID Vaccine Workplace Accommodations](https://joeroselaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/05/covid-vaccine-workplace-accommodations.png)
- [4953caf7\-47fb\-418e\-aa6e\-92fba47f5cf9](https://joeroselaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/05/4953caf7-47fb-418e-aa6e-92fba47f5cf9.png)

## Categories
- [Arbitration](https://joeroselaw.com/category/arbitration/)
- [PAGA](https://joeroselaw.com/category/paga/)
- [Class Action](https://joeroselaw.com/category/class-action/)
- [Public Employment](https://joeroselaw.com/category/public-employment/)
- [FEHA](https://joeroselaw.com/category/feha/)

## Tags
- [Arbitration](https://joeroselaw.com/tag/arbitration/)
- [Class Action](https://joeroselaw.com/tag/class-action/)
- [PAGA](https://joeroselaw.com/tag/paga/)
- [FEHA](https://joeroselaw.com/tag/feha/)
- [Public Employment](https://joeroselaw.com/tag/public-employment/)

## Optional
- [Sitemap index](https://joeroselaw.com/sitemap_index.xml)