Justia Labor & Employment Law Opinion Summaries

Farmers filed a petition for a writ of review contending that laches applies to preclude Farmers' liability for a workers compensation claim where the employer received notification of the injury the day after it happened but a workers compensation claim was not submitted to Farmers until seven years later. The court concluded that notice to or knowledge of a workplace injury on the part of the employer is deemed to be notice to or knowledge of the insurer. In this case, Farmers is deemed to have known of the injury the day after it occurred. Therefore, Farmers cannot show delay in receiving notice of the claim, which is an essential element of laches. The court affirmed the order excluding laches as an affirmative defense and remanded the case to the WCAB for further proceedings. View "Truck Ins. Exch. v. WCAB" on Justia Law

"The facts as alleged in the complaint and in plaintiff’s declaration in opposition to the motion to strike are not at all clear." Plaintiff Un Hui Nam, a new medical resident in the anesthesiology department at UC Davis Medical Center, "got off to a rocky start" in July of 2009. The Court of Appeal surmised that there appeared to have been some tension and misunderstandings right from the beginning of plaintiff's residency. What occurred thereafter and why was the subject of the underlying lawsuit and appeal. Plaintiff labeled the hospital's actions as "retaliation" when she questioned whether residents were allowed to intubate patients. She expressed her disagreement with any policy that would compel the residents in an emergency to wait for the on-call team rather than independently intubating a patient. The week prior to this email, she had received excellent performance evaluations. Plaintiff copied all of the residents in her email. Some of these residents thereafter informed her that she should expect retaliation for sending it. Defendant, however, insisted the e-mail excited no such reaction. Defendant’s version of plaintiff's residency file consisted of a series of complaints, warnings, investigations, and leaves of absence necessitated by plaintiff’s "shortcomings" over a three-year period and culminating in her ultimate termination. The record contained both complaints and testimonials about plaintiff’s performance. Apparently she had a particularly good rapport with nurses. Defendant built a paper trail of warnings for unprofessional conduct and an inability to get along with other doctors. But many of defendant’s allegations were not substantiated during the internal investigations that ensued, and the anesthesiology department was criticized repeatedly for what it did, and did not do, to teach plaintiff the clinical and interpersonal skills needed to succeed in the program. Plaintiff requested, without success, a formal hearing to contest the termination. In January 2013 she filed her complaint for retaliation, discrimination, sexual harassment, wrongful termination, violations of the Business and Professions Code, and breach of contract. Defendant filed a motion to strike pursuant to section 425.16 of the Code of Civil Procedure, alleging that plaintiff’s complaint constituted a SLAPP (strategic lawsuit against public participation) and arose from written complaints made in connection with an official proceeding. Defendant argued that the investigations and corrective action were protected conduct. The trial court disagreed and denied the motion. The trial court's denial of defendant's motion to strike was affirmed: "It is hard to imagine that a resident’s complaint alleging retaliatory conduct was designed to, or could, stifle the University from investigating and disciplining doctors who endanger public health and safety. The underlying lawsuit may or may not have merit that can be tested by summary judgment, but it is quite a stretch to consider it a SLAPP merely because a public university commences an investigation." View "Nam v. Regents of UC" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against his former employer, the Department, alleging racial discrimination in violation of the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), Gov. Code, 12900 et seq. The trial court dismissed the complaint after sustaining a demurrer on the statute of limitations ground. The court agreed with plaintiff that the order sustaining the demurrer must be reversed because the complaint sufficiently alleges that the FEHA one-year limitations period was equitably tolled during the period of the EEOC investigation. Accordingly, the court reversed the dismissal and reinstated the first amended complaint. View "Mitchell v. Dept. of Public Health" on Justia Law

In 2012, Eureka Police Sergeant Laird and others arrested a minor, after a chase in which the minor “was pushed to the ground, fell to the ground, or just gave up and laid on the ground.” A patrol car’s mobile audio-video recording system produced videos of the arrest. A citizen lodged a complaint regarding the handling of the minor. The Department conducted an investigation. Laird was charged with misdemeanor assault by a police officer without lawful necessity and making a false report. After reviewing the evidence, including the arrest video, experts determined Laird did not use excessive force. The prosecution dismissed the charges. In 2013-2014, Greenson wrote articles in local newspapers about the arrest and subsequent litigation. Greenson's request under the California Public Records Act (Gov. Code 6250), seeking disclosure of the arrest video, was denied. The city cited discretionary exemptions for personnel records and investigative files,”Penal Code sections 832.7, 832.8. Greenson then filed a request under Welfare and Institutions Code section 827, which authorizes public disclosure of confidential juvenile records under limited circumstances. The court of appeal affirmed that the arrest video is not a personnel record protected by the statutes. and the order requiring the video's release. View "City of Eureka v. Superior Court" on Justia Law

In 2012, Eureka Police Sergeant Laird and other officers arrested a minor, after a chase in which the minor “was pushed to the ground, fell to the ground, or just gave up and laid on the ground.” A patrol car’s mobile audio-video recording system produced videos of the arrest. A citizen lodged a complaint regarding the handling of the minor. The Department conducted an investigation. Sergeant Laird was charged with misdemeanor assault by a police officer without lawful necessity and making a false report. After reviewing the evidence, including the arrest video, experts determined Laird did not use excessive force. The prosecution dismissed the charges. In 2013-2014, Greenson wrote articles in local newspapers about the arrest and subsequent litigation. Greenson filed a California Public Records Act (Gov. Code 6250) request seeking disclosure of the arrest video. The city denied the request, citing discretionary exemptions for personnel records and investigative files, Penal Code sections 832.7, 832.8. Greenson then filed a request under Welfare and Institutions Code section 827, which authorizes public disclosure of confidential juvenile records under limited circumstances. The court of appeal affirmed that the arrest video is not a personnel record protected by the statutes. and an order requiring release of the video. View "City of Eureka v. Superior Court" on Justia Law

This appeal addressed a collective action alleging nonpayment of overtime, as required by state law under Labor Code section 510 and federal law under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (FLSA). Plaintiff Jose Luis Morales and 177 other similarly situated plaintiffs (collectively, appellants) sued their employer, the 22nd District Agricultural Association of the State of California (the DAA), alleging nonpayment of overtime. Appellants were seasonal employees of the DAA who assist with amusement and seasonal operations. Appellants contended that reversal of the judgment in favor of the DAA on their FLSA claim was required because the trial court: (1) improperly denied their nonsuit motion; (2) erred in instructing the jury; (3) provided an erroneous special verdict form; and (4) improperly excluded party witnesses from the courtroom. The Court of Appeal found that appellants did not meet their burden to demonstrate reversible error. Furthermore, the Court concluded that the trial court properly sustained the DAA's demurrer to appellants' section 510 claim, but erred in denying leave to amend. View "Morales v. 22nd Dist. Agricultural Assn." on Justia Law

Steven Seapker was administratively appealing a decision by the City of Carlsbad (City) to discharge him from his position as a police officer. His defense was that the City was penalizing him more harshly than it has penalized other similarly situated police officers. This case presented the question of whether a judgment denying a petition for writ of mandate challenging an evidentiary ruling of a hearing officer was an appealable final judgment or a nonappealable interlocutory judgment. The Court of Appeal published this order to clarify that a judgment denying a petition for writ of mandate challenging an evidentiary ruling of a hearing officer was a nonappealable interlocutory judgment where, as here, the superior court did not deny the petition on the merits, the administrative proceedings before the hearing officer were not concluded, the hearing officer was not the final administrative decision maker, and the hearing officer's decision did not a create a substantial risk confidential information would be publicly disclosed. The Court, therefore, dismissed the appeal and denied a related motion for stay as moot. View "City of Carlsbad v. Scholtz" on Justia Law

In the underlying action, inmate Alejandro Franco filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983 after Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Deputies David Chang, Anthony Pimentel, and Kris Cordova assaulted Franco. The deputies signed agreements with the County of Los Angeles setting forth the terms and conditions under which the County would defend them. The jury found that the deputies violated Franco's federal civil rights and awarded damages. The deputies’ request for indemnification from the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors was denied. The deputies then filed suit against the County and others, seeking to compel payment of the Franco judgment. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the deputies. The court held, however, that Government Code section 825.2 applies when a public entity employer provides a defense under a reservation of rights that includes reservation of the right not to indemnify for acts committed with actual fraud, corruption or actual malice. An employer’s reservation of the right to indemnity from the employee for acts committed with actual fraud, corruption or actual malice is necessarily a reservation of the right not to indemnify the employee for such acts. Accordingly, the court reversed the judgment with directions. View "Chang v. County of Los Angeles" on Justia Law

Popescu sued Apple for damages after he was fired by his employer, Constellium. He alleged that Apple took affirmative steps to convince Constellium to terminate him in retaliation for his resistance to Apple’s alleged illegal anti-competitive conduct. The court dismissed. The court of appeal reversed with respect to claims for intentional interference with contractual relations and for intentional interference with prospective economic advantage. An employee whose at-will employment contract is terminated as a result of a third party’s interference need not allege that the defendant’s conduct was independently wrongful to state a contract interference claim. Popescu was not required to allege that he was directly harmed by an independently wrongful act so long as he alleged (as he did) that Apple’s wrongful act interfered with his economic relationship with Constellium. View "Popescu v. Apple Inc." on Justia Law

Waters began working as a Petaluma firefighter and paramedic in 2008. She was the first and only woman to hold that position. She claims she was immediately subjected to harassment and discrimination based upon her sex. According to Waters, she was subjected to retaliation when she complained. The city maintains that Waters never complained. In February 2014, Waters went on leave; in May, the city received notice from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, that Waters had filed a charge alleging sexual harassment and retaliation. Days later, Waters voluntarily resigned. The city retained outside counsel, Oppenheimer, to investigate. Oppenheimer provided her report to the city only; every page contained an indication that it was confidential and attorney-client privileged. During discovery in Waters’ lawsuit, the court granted a motion to compel production of the report. The court of appeal reversed. The dominant purpose of Oppenheimer’s investigation was not fact-finding, but to provide legal services in anticipation of litigation. She was not required to give legal advice as to what course of action to pursue in order for the attorney-client privilege to apply. The privilege was not waived by the employer’s assertion of an avoidable consequences defense; the city does not seek to rely on the post-employment investigation as a defense, nor could it. View "City of Petaluma v. Superior Court" on Justia Law