United States: California Employment Law Notes - September 2013

Employer May Be Liable For Death Resulting From Drunk Employee's Automobile Accident

Purton v. Marriott Int'l, Inc., 218 Cal. App. 4th 499 (2013)

In December 2009, the Marriott Del Mar Hotel held its annual holiday party as a "thank you" to its employees and management. Marriott did not require its employees to attend the party. Michael Landri was employed as a bartender at the hotel. Landri, who did not work on the day of the party, drank a beer and a shot of Jack Daniel's whiskey at home before arriving at the party; Landri took a flask to the party, which he estimated held about five ounces, filled to some degree with whiskey. Landri re-filled his flask with more whiskey from the bar at least once (but possibly more than once) during the party. At approximately 9:00 p.m., Landri left the party and drove (or was driven) home. Landri did not drink any more after leaving the party. After arriving home safely, Landri decided to get back on the road to drive another intoxicated co-worker to the co-worker's house. During the second trip, Landri (who had a blood alcohol level of 0.16) drove over 100 miles per hour and rear-ended Dr. Jared Purton's vehicle, killing Dr. Purton. The trial court granted Marriott's motion for summary judgment on the ground that Landri was not acting within the scope of his employment at the time of the accident, but the Court of Appeal reversed the judgment, holding that "a trier of fact could conclude the party and drinking of alcoholic beverages benefitted Marriott by improving employee morale and furthering employer-employee relations... [and] that Landri was acting within the scope of his employment while ingesting alcoholic beverages at the party." The fact that Landri had arrived home safely before venturing out again did not cut off Marriott's liability as a matter of law. Compare Rayii v. Gatica, 2013 WL 4446778 (Cal. Ct. App. 2013) (judgment affirmed where jury determined negligent driver was not acting within the course and scope of his employment at the time of the accident).

Prevailing Employer Entitled To Recover Its Costs In Discrimination Case

Williams v. Chino Valley Indep. Fire Dist., 218 Cal. App. 4th 73 (2013)

Loring Winn Williams sued the Fire District for disability discrimination under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act. The Fire District succeeded in getting the case dismissed on summary judgment – after filing a successful petition for writ of mandate when the motion was initially denied. The Fire District subsequently filed a memorandum of costs, and the trial court awarded the Fire District $5,368.88 in costs pursuant to Code of Civ. Proc. § 1032(b). On appeal, Williams asserted that no costs should have been awarded because his discrimination claim – though unsuccessful – was not "frivolous, unreasonable, or groundless." The Court of Appeal affirmed the award of costs to the employer on the ground that "ordinary costs are obtainable by the prevailing defendant as a matter of right, and they are not subject to [the standard set forth in] Christiansburg Garment Co. v. EEOC, 434 U.S. 412 (1978)." Note also Cal. Senate Bill No. 462 (amending Lab. Code § 218.5 to limit employer recovery of prevailing-party attorney's fees to cases in which the employee brought the action in "bad faith").

Discrimination Claims Were Barred By Statute Of Limitations

Acuna v. San Diego Gas & Elec. Co., 217 Cal. App. 4th 1402 (2013)

Esperanza Acuna filed three separate complaints against her employer (San Diego Gas & Electric) with the Department of Fair Employment and Housing ("DFEH"): One in March 2006 for racial discrimination and harassment and retaliation for filing a workers' compensation claim; one in February 2007 for disability discrimination; and one in October 2008 for retaliatory termination. Acuna filed her civil lawsuit in November 2009 (within one year of the date of the right-to-sue letter issued in response to her third DFEH complaint). SDG&E demurred to the complaint on the ground that it was barred by the one-year statute of limitations. The trial court sustained the demurrer without leave to amend and dismissed Acuna's lawsuit. The Court of Appeal affirmed dismissal of all claims except the claims for retaliation and wrongful termination, which the court determined had been timely filed. As to the dismissed claims, the Court rejected Acuna's argument that her 2006 and 2007 DFEH claims were saved either by the continuing violation or equitable tolling doctrines.

District Manager Was Properly Classified As Independent Contractor

Beaumont-Jacques v. Farmers Group, Inc., 217 Cal. App. 4th 1138 (2013)

Erin Beaumont-Jacques worked as a district manager for various insurance companies pursuant to a District Manager Appointment Agreement. After Beaumont-Jacques voluntarily terminated the relationship, she sued for breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and faith dealing, sex discrimination and violation of Business and Professions Code § 17200 (all on the basis of her claim that she was really an employee and not an independent contractor). The trial court granted the insurance companies' motion for summary judgment after determining as a matter of law that Beaumont-Jacques was an independent contractor and not an employee. The Court of Appeal affirmed, holding that Beaumont-Jacques exercised "meaningful discretion" in recruiting agents for and, when selected, training and motivating those agents to sell defendants' insurance products. See also Happy Nails & Spa of Fashion Valley, L.P. v. Su, 217 Cal. App. 4th 1459 (2013) (decision of the Cal. Unemp. Ins. App. Bd. that cosmetologists were independent contractors and not employees collaterally estopped the Labor Commissioner from assessing employment-related penalties); Estrada v. City of Los Angeles, 218 Cal. App. 4th 143 (2013) (volunteer police reserve officer was not an employee even though he received workers' compensation benefits from the city).

Whistleblower Employee Must Exhaust Administrative Remedies Before Suing For Retaliatory Discharge

MacDonald v. State of Cal., 2013 WL 4522792 (Cal. Ct. App. 2013)

Aaron MacDonald worked for the State of California and the California State Assembly and was fired shortly after complaining that one of his supervisors was "illegally and/or inappropriately smoking" at the office. In response, MacDonald sued for retaliatory discharge in violation of Labor Code § 1102.5 and retaliatory and discriminatory discharge in violation of Labor Code § 6310. Defendants demurred to MacDonald's complaint, and the trial court sustained the demurrers and dismissed the lawsuit. The Court of Appeal affirmed, holding that although Sections 1102.5 and 6310 are silent regarding administrative remedies, Labor Code § 98.7(a) provides in pertinent part that "Any person who believes that he or she has been discharged or otherwise discriminated against in violation of any law under the jurisdiction of the Labor Commissioner may file a complaint with the division within six months after the occurrence of the violation." The Court concluded that even though the "administrative remedy is couched in permissive, as opposed to mandatory, language," where an administrative remedy is provided by statute, relief must be sought from the administrative body and that remedy exhausted before the courts will act. See also Wade v. Ports Am. Mgmt. Corp., 218 Cal. App. 4th 648 (2013) (labor arbitration pursuant to a collective bargaining agreement had preclusive effect with respect to plaintiff's common law racial discrimination claim).

Bankrupt Employee Was Not Estopped From Prosecuting Undisclosed Discrimination Action

Quin v. County of Kauai Dep't. of Transp., 2013 WL 3814916 (9th Cir. 2013)

Kathleen M. Ah Quin contends that her employer (the Kauai Department of Transportation) discriminated against her because she is a woman. While pursuing her discrimination action, Quin filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy protection and failed to list the lawsuit as an asset in her bankruptcy schedules where she was required to disclose same. After Quin's lawyer became aware of the potential effect of the bankruptcy proceeding – and after the district court was notified and vacated all dates and deadlines and scheduled a status conference – Quin moved to reopen her bankruptcy case in order to amend her bankruptcy schedules to list the pending lawsuit as an additional asset. The district court held that Quin was judicially estopped from proceeding with the discrimination lawsuit and granted summary judgment in favor of the employer. The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed (over a strong dissent from Circuit Judge Bybee), holding that the district court should not have applied a presumption of deceit on Quin's part (in not initially disclosing the existence of the lawsuit) and should, instead, have inquired into whether the omission in the bankruptcy proceeding was in fact inadvertent or mistaken. See also Smith v. Clark County School Dist., 2013 WL 4437599 (9th Cir. 2013) (employee provided sufficient explanations for the inconsistencies between her ADA disability claim and her Public Employees' Retirement System ("PERS") and FMLA claims to survive summary judgment).

PAGA Claims Cannot Be Aggregated To Satisfy Jurisdictional Minimum Required For Removal

Urbino v. Orkin Servs. of Cal., Inc., 2013 WL 4055615 (9th Cir. 2013)

John Urbino alleged in the form of a claim under the Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 ("PAGA") that Orkin illegally deprived him and other non-exempt employees of meal periods, overtime and vacation wages and accurate itemized wage statements. Defendants removed the action to federal court on the basis of diversity of citizenship between them and Urbino, contending that the violations identified by Urbino would give rise to claims involving 811 other employees who were issued at least 17,182 paychecks and that those claims in the aggregate could result in liability in excess of the jurisdictional minimum of $75,000. The district court found the PAGA claims to be common and undivided and therefore capable of aggregation, but the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit vacated the lower court's order, holding that all of the rights at issue in the case are held individually and they can be redressed without the involvement of other employees: "Defendants' obligation to [the employees] is not 'as a group,' but as 'individuals severally.' Thus, diversity jurisdiction does not lie because their claims cannot be aggregated." See also Rodriguez v. AT&T Mobility Servs. LLC, 2013 WL 4516757 (9th Cir. 2013) (lead plaintiff's waiver of any claim in excess of the $5 million jurisdictional minimum under the Class Action Fairness Act was ineffective in light of Standard Fire Ins. Co. v. Knowles, 133 S. Ct. 1345 (2013)).

Judgment In Favor Of Commissioned Sales Representative Is Upheld

Reilly v. Inquest Tech., Inc., 218 Cal. App. 4th 536 (2013)

Peter Reilly sued Inquest under the Independent Wholesale Representatives Contractual Relations Act of 1990, Civil Code § 1738.10, et seq. (the "Act"), which was created to protect sales representatives who receive commissions from, but who are not employed by, a manufacturer. The jury entered a general verdict in favor of Reilly, awarding him more than $2 million for owed commissions, and determined by a special findings verdict that Inquest had violated the terms of the Act by willfully failing to provide Reilly with a written contract. Pursuant to the Act's penalty provisions, the trial court awarded Reilly treble damages. The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment, holding that the Act did apply (Inquest did not oppose Reilly's motion for summary adjudication on this issue) and that there was sufficient evidence that Inquest breached a contract with Reilly.

Wage Claims Were Not Barred By Statute Of Limitations

Bain v. Tax Reducers, Inc., 2013 WL 4542681 (Cal. Ct. App. 2013)

Harold Bain sued Tax Reducers, Inc. ("TRI") for unpaid minimum wages, expenses and waiting time penalties. TRI contended that Bain was an independent contractor and not an employee of TRI. In an earlier administrative proceeding, the Labor Commissioner determined that Bain was an employee and awarded him $15,105.86. In a subsequent trial, the Court also determined that Bain was an employee and that his claims were governed by the three-year statute of limitations (applicable to statutory claims) and that the claims were not barred by the statute of limitations because TRI had agreed to pay wages as part of a settlement agreement. The trial court found in the alternative that Bain could rely upon the doctrine of equitable tolling. The Court of Appeal struck $7,700 in liquidated damages from the judgment on the basis of a one-year statute of limitations but otherwise affirmed it. The Court further held the action was not barred by the three-year statute of limitations; that TRI intentionally withheld Bain's wages (subjecting it to waiting-time penalties under Labor Code § 203); that Bain was an employee and not an independent contractor; and that the trial court correctly dismissed Bain's wage claims against TRI's president and majority shareholder, James Brooks Griffin, on the ground that Griffin was not Bain's employer and could not be held personally liable for failing to pay Bain's wages. See also Farmers Ins. Exch. v. Superior Court, 218 Cal. App. 4th 96 (2013) (California Supreme Court's act of depublishing an appellate court opinion on which a prior court order relied can constitute a "change of law" within the meaning of Code of Civ. Proc. § 1008(c)).

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Authors
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Proskauer Rose LLP
Proskauer Rose LLP
 
In association with
Related Topics
 
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Proskauer Rose LLP
Proskauer Rose LLP
Related Articles
 
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
Mondaq on Twitter
 
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
 
Email Address
Company Name
Password
Confirm Password
Position
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Accounting
 Anti-trust
 Commercial
 Compliance
 Consumer
 Criminal
 Employment
 Energy
 Environment
 Family
 Finance
 Government
 Healthcare
 Immigration
 Insolvency
 Insurance
 International
 IP
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Litigation
 Media & IT
 Privacy
 Real Estate
 Strategy
 Tax
 Technology
 Transport
 Wealth Mgt
Regions
Africa
Asia
Asia Pacific
Australasia
Canada
Caribbean
Europe
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
U.K.
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.

Disclaimer

The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.

General

Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions