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.

In association with
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
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
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Check to state you have read and
agree to our Terms and Conditions

Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

Use of www.mondaq.com

You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). 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 & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about Mondaq.com’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.


Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd 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 or performance of information available from this server.

The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.


Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here .

If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq by clicking here .

Information Collection and Use

We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to unsubscribe@mondaq.com with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

Mondaq News Alerts

In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.


A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

Log Files

We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.


This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

Surveys & Contests

From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.


If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.


From time to time Mondaq may send you emails promoting Mondaq services including new services. You may opt out of receiving such emails by clicking below.

*** If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of services offered by Mondaq you may opt out by clicking here .


This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to webmaster@mondaq.com.

Correcting/Updating Personal Information

If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to EditorialAdvisor@mondaq.com.

Notification of Changes

If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

How to contact Mondaq

You can contact us with comments or queries at enquiries@mondaq.com.

If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at problems@mondaq.com and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.