United States: California Employment Law Notes - September 2014

Franchisor Is Not Liable For Franchisee's Alleged Sexual Harassment Of Its Employee

Patterson v. Domino's Pizza, LLC, 2014 WL 4236175 (Cal. S. Ct. 2014)

Taylor Patterson was hired by Sui Juris (a franchisee of Domino's Pizza) to serve customers at its store. Patterson alleged that she was sexually harassed by Renee Miranda, an adult male who held the title of assistant manager of the Sui Juris store. In her complaint, Patterson alleged that she and Miranda were employed by Domino's (the franchisor). Domino's filed a motion for summary judgment on the grounds that the franchise contract stated there was no "principal and agent" relationship between it and the franchisee and Domino's disclaimed "any relationship with Sui Juris's employees" and assumed "no rights, duties, or responsibilities" as to their employment. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Domino's, but the court of appeal reversed. In this (4-to-3) opinion, the California Supreme Court reversed the court of appeal and reinstated summary judgment in favor of Domino's on the ground that "the imposition and enforcement of a uniform marketing and operational plan cannot automatically saddle the franchisor with responsibility for employees of the franchisee who injure each other on the job." See also Carlton v. Dr. Pepper Snapple Group, Inc., 2014 WL 3955885 (Cal. Ct. App. 2014) (breach of contract action filed against employer by male employee who was terminated after showing sexually explicit photo to a female employee was properly dismissed).

Employer Properly Deducted Hours From Exempt Employee's Leave Bank

Rhea v. General Atomics, 227 Cal. App. 4th 1560 (2014)

Lori Rhea is an exempt employee of General Atomics who receives a salary and accrues comprehensive annual leave ("Annual Leave") that can be used by employees to take paid time off for any reason, including vacation, sickness, medical appointments, family obligations and leisure pursuits. The amount of Annual Leave that accrues depends on the employee's length of service and ranges from 15 to 32 days per year. General Atomics' policy has been to deduct from Annual Leave for partial-day absences of any length – though an employee who is absent for a full or partial day is not required to use Annual Leave if during the same week the employee works a total of 40 hours. Rhea filed this putative class action on behalf of herself and other exempt employees who were subject to Annual Leave deductions for partial-day absences of less than four hours. The trial court granted General Atomics' summary judgment motion on the ground that California law does not prohibit requiring exempt employees to use Annual Leave for partial-day absences of any length. The Court of Appeal affirmed, holding that the policy did not create an illegal forfeiture and that prior case law does not limit such deductions to instances in which the partial-day absence is at least four hours in duration.

Police Officer's ADHD Was Not A Disability Within The Meaning Of The ADA

Weaving v. City of Hillsboro, 2014 WL 3973411 (9th Cir. 2014)

Matthew Weaving worked as a police officer for the City of Hillsboro for approximately three years before his employment was terminated due to "severe interpersonal problems" between him and other employees of the police department. Weaving contended that his interpersonal problems resulted from his attention deficit hyperactivity disorder ("ADHD") and that his termination violated the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). After the case went to a jury, which found in Weaving's favor, the City filed a motion for judgment as a matter of law based on insufficient evidence to support the verdict. The district court denied the City's motion, but the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed, holding that a jury could not reasonably have concluded that Weaving's ADHD substantially limited his ability to work or interact with others and, therefore, he was not disabled within the meaning of the ADA. See also Chubb & Son v. Superior Court, 2014 WL 3919614 (Cal. Ct. App. 2014) (no error in trial court's permitting parties to disclose to their respective attorneys privileged documents in connection with former in-house counsel's disability discrimination lawsuit).

Alleged Whistleblower Could Proceed With Wrongful Termination Claim

Yau v. Santa Margarita Ford, Inc., 2014 WL 4198060 (Cal. Ct. App. 2014)

Eddie Yau, a service manager for Santa Margarita Ford, alleged he was terminated after complaining to his general manager and the owner of the Ford dealership that fraudulent warranty repair claims were being submitted to Ford. Yau alleged that his termination implicated state statutes proscribing theft and fraud. The trial court sustained defendants' demurrers, but the Court of Appeal reversed in part, holding that Yau's allegations were of sufficient "public" importance to support a claim of public policy violation – even though Yau "reluctantly complied" with the allegedly illegal directions of his supervisor when he signed warranty claims he believed were "suspicious." The Court of Appeal affirmed dismissal of Yau's claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress on the ground that it was barred by the exclusivity provisions of the Workers' Compensation Act. See also Hager v. County of Los Angeles, 2014 WL 4078248 (Cal. Ct. App. 2014) (sheriff's deputy properly obtained verdict in whistleblower lawsuit even though his may not have been the "first report" of wrongdoing, but evidence did not support $2 million economic damages award); Thomas v. County of Riverside, 2014 WL 4056546 (9th Cir. 2014) (lower court improperly disregarded evidence of multiple adverse employment actions that a jury might conclude deterred protected speech); Shaw v. Superior Court, 2014 WL 4102480 (Cal. Ct. App. 2014) (whistleblower asserting Health & Safety Code § 1278.5 claim is entitled to a jury trial); Van Asdale v. International Game Tech., 2014 WL 3973388 (9th Cir. 2014) (prevailing Sarbanes-Oxley plaintiffs are entitled to post-judgment interest at the rate set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 1961 rather than 26 U.S.C. § 6621).

LAPD Officer Properly Prevailed In FLSA Anti-Retaliation Claim

Avila v. Los Angeles Police Dep't, 2014 WL 3361123 (9th Cir. 2014)

Leonard Avila, a police officer with the Los Angeles Police Department, periodically worked through his lunch breaks and did not claim overtime. After Avila testified in a lawsuit brought by another officer who sought overtime under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), Avila was ordered to appear before the LAPD Board of Rights ("BOR"), a disciplinary review body. The BOR found Avila guilty of insubordination and recommended that he be fired, which the Chief of Police subsequently ordered as a result of his insubordination for failing to claim overtime. Avila then filed this lawsuit under the anti-retaliation provision of the FLSA, and a jury found in his favor. In this appeal, the City argued that the BOR recommendation that Avila's employment be terminated precluded his FLSA retaliation claim. The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit rejected this argument on the ground that the BOR never addressed the issue of retaliation by the LAPD so there was no issue preclusion. The Court of Appeals also found no instructional error by the trial court. Finally, the Court affirmed an award of $547,400 in attorney's fees to Avila. See also Kaufman v. Diskeeper Corp., 2014 WL 4102376 (Cal. Ct. App. 2014) (party seeking attorney's fees pursuant to Civil Code § 1717 need not, in addition to filing a noticed motion, file a memorandum of costs).

Employees Could Proceed With Malicious Prosecution Action Against Former Employer's Counsel

Parrish v. Latham & Watkins LLP, 2014 WL 4220542 (Cal. Ct. App. 2014)

In a prior litigation, FLIR Systems, Inc., and Indigo Systems Corp. (collectively, "FLIR") brought suit against their former employees, William Parrish and E. Timothy Fitzgibbons (the "Former Employees"), for, among other things, misappropriation of trade secrets. The Former Employees defeated the claims and then obtained a ruling that the misappropriation of trade secrets claim had been brought against them in bad faith, which resulted in an order that FLIR pay the Former Employees their attorney's fees and costs in an amount exceeding $1.6 million. Thereafter, the Former Employees brought this malicious prosecution claim against FLIR's attorneys (Latham & Watkins LLP), which Latham moved to strike under the anti-SLAPP statute (Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 425.16). The trial court granted Latham's motion, but the Court of Appeal reversed, holding that the Former Employees had established a probability of prevailing on the merits because the action was not barred by the statute of limitations and because there was evidence of a lack of probable cause for prosecuting the underlying action. See also Gotterba v. Travolta, 228 Cal. App. 4th 35 (2014) (anti-SLAPP motion filed in response to declaratory relief action that was filed following receipt of attorney's letters threatening litigation over a contract dispute was properly denied).

Trial Court Should Not Have Denied Class Certification To Employees Seeking Reimbursement For Cell Phone Charges

Cochran v. Schwan's Home Serv., Inc., 2014 WL 3965240 (Cal. Ct. App. 2014)

Colin Cochran filed this putative class action on behalf of himself and 1,500 similarly situated customer service managers who were not reimbursed for expenses pertaining to the work-related use of their personal cell phones. The trial court denied class certification to the putative class based upon a lack of commonality because "individualized inquiries of the class members' cell phone plans and payments are necessary to determine liability." The Court of Appeal reversed on the ground that reimbursement is always required regardless of whether the employees incurred an extra expense that they would not otherwise have incurred absent the job. "Thus, to be in compliance with [Labor Code] section 2802, the employer must pay some reasonable percentage of the employee's cell phone bill." The Court conceded that "[d]amages, of course, raise issues that are more complicated." See also Hendershot v. Ready to Roll Transport, 2014 WL 3956777 (Cal. Ct. App. 2014) (trial court improperly considered the merits of defendant's affirmative defenses in concluding that putative class lacked numerosity).

Alzheimer's Patients Are Not Liable For Injuries They May Inflict On Home Health Care Workers

Gregory v. Cott, 2014 WL 3805478 (Cal. S. Ct. 2014)

Carolyn Gregory was injured while providing in-home care for Lorraine Cott, an Alzheimer's disease patient. Gregory received workers' compensation benefits but sued the Cotts for negligence and premises liability and asserted a claim against Lorraine for battery. The trial court granted a defense motion for summary judgment based on the primary assumption of risk doctrine. The California Court of Appeal and California Supreme Court affirmed, holding that "it is [Gregory's] occupation to care for Alzheimer's patients. We do not hold that anyone who helps with such patients assumes the risk of injury. The rule we adopt is limited to professional home health care workers who are trained and employed by an agency." See also LeFiell Mfg. Co. v. Superior Court, 2014 WL 3855046 (Cal. Ct. App. 2014) (Labor Code § 4558, which provides an exception to workers' compensation exclusivity where there has been a knowing removal by the employer of a point of operation guard on a power press, did not apply in this case).

Unfair Competition Claim Against Trucking Company Is Not Preempted By Federal Law

People v. Pac Anchor Transp., Inc., 2014 WL 3702674 (Cal. S. Ct. 2014)

The People on behalf of the State of California filed this unfair competition law ("UCL") action against Pac Anchor Transportation, Inc., for misclassifying drivers as independent contractors and for other alleged violations of California labor and unemployment insurance laws. In response, Pac Anchor filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings on the ground that the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act of 1994 ("FAAAA") preempted the People's claims. The California Supreme Court held that the FAAAA does not preempt the UCL action, noting that the "People's sole premise for invoking the UCL is to ensure that employers properly classify their employees or independent contractors in order to conform to state law." See also Dilts v. Penske Logistics, LLC, 2014 WL 3291749 (9th Cir. 2014) (claims by drivers suing for violations of California meal and rest break laws were not preempted by the FAAAA because the state laws at issue are not related to "prices, routes, or services").

FedEx Drivers Are Employees Not Independent Contractors

Alexander v. FedEx Ground Package Sys., Inc., 2014 WL 4211107 (9th Cir. 2014)

In this class action, the named plaintiffs represent approximately 2,300 individuals who were full-time delivery drivers for FedEx in California between 2000 and 2007. FedEx characterizes its drivers as independent contractors in its Operating Agreement. Similar cases to this one were filed in approximately 40 states, and the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation consolidated these cases for multidistrict litigation ("MDL") in the District Court for the Northern District of Indiana. The MDL Court certified a class for plaintiffs' claims under California law and subsequently granted FedEx's motions for summary judgment, holding that plaintiffs were independent contractors as a matter of law in each state (including California) where employment status is governed by common-law agency principles. In this opinion, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed the summary judgment that was granted to FedEx and ordered, instead, that summary judgment be entered in favor of plaintiffs. The Court based its decision on the ground that the "Operating Agreement grants FedEx a broad right to control the manner in which its drivers perform their work. The most important factor of the right-to-control test thus strongly favors employee status."

Employees Of Electrical/Gas Company Are Not Entitled To Off-Duty Meal Periods

Araquistain v. Pacific Gas & Elec. Co., 2014 WL 4227872 (Cal. Ct. App. 2014)

Plaintiffs Ignacio Araquistain, David Page and Douglas Girouard are non-exempt, unionized employees of PG&E, which is an "electrical corporation" and a "gas corporation" within the meaning of Labor Code § 512(f)(4). The operative collective bargaining agreement states that "shift employees and other employees whose workday consists of eight consecutive hours shall be permitted to eat their meals during work hours and shall not be allowed additional time therefore [sic] at Company expense." In this action, plaintiffs alleged that PG&E is required to provide off-duty meal breaks to its employees, notwithstanding the contrary provision contained in the collective bargaining agreement. The Court of Appeal affirmed summary judgment in favor of PG&E, holding that a collective bargaining agreement providing that employees shall be permitted to eat their meals during work hours "expressly provides for meal periods for those employees" as required by Labor Code § 512(e)(2).

California Employment Law Notes - September 2014

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
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 you may opt out by clicking here

    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.

    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.

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