California Supreme Court: Franchisor MAY Be Liable for Franchisee's Employee's Sexual Harassment Claim*

*But not in this case.

Taylor Patterson, an employee at a Domino's franchise in southern California, sued her employer (called "Sui Juris LLC") and her former manager for sexual harassment.  She also sued Domino's Pizza,  LLC, the franchisor.  

The trial court granted Domino's' summary judgment motion, finding Domino's was not the plaintiff's employer, or that the franchisee was not Domino's' "agent."  The court of appeal, though, reversed.  

On review, the California Supreme Court agreed with the trial court, and dismissed the case against Domino's, the franchisor.  

The opinion goes into a long discussion of franchisor history and law, which I'm sparing you. Here is the money quote:

franchisees are owner-operators who hold a personal and financial stake in the business. A major incentive is the franchisee‘s right to hire the people who work for him, and to oversee their performance each day. A franchisor enters this arena, and becomes potentially liable for actions of the franchisee‘s employees, only if it has retained or assumed a general right of control over factors such as hiring, direction, supervision, discipline, discharge, and relevant day-to-day aspects of the workplace behavior of the franchisee‘s employees. Any other guiding principle would disrupt the franchise relationship.

The Fair Employment and Housing Act holds "employers" liable for workplace discrimination, harassment, and retaliation.  The franchisor, although exercising control over branding and the products and services offered, did not impose control over the day to day employment relationship.  

The Supreme Court went on to explain what the nature of an "employer" is in the context of FEHA:

There are few California cases defining an employer under the FEHA provisions invoked here. But, it appears, traditional common law principles of agency and respondeat superior supply the proper analytical framework under FEHA, as they do for franchising generally. Courts in FEHA cases have emphasized "the control exercised by the employer over the employee‘s performance of employment duties." (Bradley v. Department of Corrections & Rehabilitation (2008) 158 Cal.App.4th 1612, 1626, citing Vernon, supra, 116 Cal.App.4th 114, 124-125; accord, McCoy v. Pacific Maritime Assn. (2013) 216 Cal.App.4th 283, 301-302.) This standard requires "a comprehensive and immediate level of 'day-to-day‘ authority" over matters such as hiring, firing, direction, supervision, and discipline of the employee. (Vernon, supra, 116 Cal.App.4th at pp. 127-128.)

As discussed above, Domino‘s lacked the general control of an employer or principal over relevant day-to-day aspects of the employment and workplace behavior of Sui Juris‘s employees. Application of the FEHA test for determining an employment relationship produces no different result in this franchising case than the one we have already reached. Plaintiff is mistaken to the extent she implies that the contrary is true.

So, this case should guide franchisors, as well as affiliated companies. 

Turning to the case at bar, the Supreme Court examined a number of facts to determine Domino's did not exercise the requisite control.  These included

- the language of the franchise agreement.  Critically, the agreement provided Domino's had no say in day-to-day employment issues involving the franchisee's employees. 

- the franchisee in practice exclusively controlled hiring, firing, and other employment decisions. He did not involve Domino's in any such decisions.

- the franchisor did provide certain training to employees on methods and the like.  But the franchisee had exclusive control over sexual harassment training and "how employees treat each other" in the workplace.

- Domino's had no complaint procedure for franchisee employees to report harassment; only the franchisee had such procedures in place.

It should be noted this decision was 4-3.  Justice Baxter penned the majority opinion. He's retiring. I'm going to miss him.  CJ Cantil-Sakauye and Justices Chin and Corrigan joined the majority.

Justice Werdegar, joined by Justice Liu and Justice Chaney (sitting by designation from the court of appeal), would have held that the franchisor should be held liable.  However, even the dissenters agreed

That a franchisor is not automatically the employer of its franchisee‘s employees, irrespective of the details of the parties‘ relationship, necessarily follows. So, too, does it follow that a franchisor may under the circumstances of the parties‘ relationship in fact be an employer. The outcome depends on the factual inquiry.

Therefore, all seven justices agreed on the basic principle. The dissenters believed there was enough to hold Domino's LLC liable.  So, there is no bright line rule re franchisor liability.  There will be litigation to decide in each case whether a franchisor exercises the requisite control to qualify as an "employer."  Franchisors and franchisees will have to ensure their agreements are consistent with their intent in this area.  And franchisors seeking to avoid responsibility for employment law claims will have to cede control over day-to-day employment issues.

This case is Patterson v. Domino's LLC and the opinion is here.

Court of Appeal: Employer Must Litigate Exhaustion of Remedies in FEHA Cases and More

Kim v. Konad USA Distribution, Inc. is an opinion about a sexual harassment / wrongful termination claim against a small employer and its owner.  No, Beavis, the accused harasser's name is not Whang Dong.  OK, yes it is.

Anyway, the opinion concerns some procedural issues, so I won't review the facts, which are pretty bad.  You can review the opinion here.

The plaintiff in a Fair Employment and Housing Act case must "exhaust" administrative remedies by filing an administrative complaint with the Department of Fair Employment and Housing, and by obtaining a right to sue letter.  The agency has reduced this obligation to filing a boiler-plate form online and receiving an immediate right to sue letter.   But the filing is still mandatory.

If the employer believes the administrative complaint is not filed, or inadequate to cover the claims in the lawsuit, the employer may raise that issue before trial via motion for summary judgment, demurrer, or judgment on the pleadings.  But, the Court of Appeal decided, the employer cannot wait until the end of a trial to seek dismissal of a claim under the Fair Employment and Housing Act on the basis that an employee failed to exhaust her administrative remedies:

If a defendant timely presents the issue of whether a FEHA plaintiff has properly presented all claims to the DFEH, a court must decide the merits of this question. (Keiffer, supra, 65 Cal.App.4th at p. 900.) But “‘it would be grossly unfair to allow a defendant to ignore this potential procedural defense at a time when facts and memories were fresh and put a plaintiff to the time and expense of a full trial, knowing it could assert the failure to exhaust administrative remedies if it received an adverse [judgment].’” (Ibid.; see also Mokler, supra, 157 Cal.App.4th at p. 136 [defendant waived exhaustion defense by “waiting to raise exhaustion until after a full trial on the merits”].)

We therefore disagree with defendants’ underlying premise that exhaustion of administrative remedies affects the fundamental subject matter jurisdiction of the court. Prior to submission of the case for decision, defendants did not request dismissal of the FEHA causes of action based on plaintiff’s failure to exhaust.

The Court of Appeal also addressed the defendants' separate argument that the plaintiff did not establish 5 or more employees worked for the employer, which would establish coverage by the statute.  The employer argued on appeal that a common law wrongful termination claim would not be viable if it had fewer than five employees. 

But the plaintiff was suing for sexual harassment as well. Sexual harassment requires only one employee.  Plaintiff claimed she was forced to quit due to the sexual harassment.  Therefore, she argued the public policy applied to the employer, even though it was too small to be held liable for discriminatory or retaliatory termination under the FEHA.

The Court of Appeal decided the plaintiff had the better argument:

all employers (not just those with five or more employees) accused of harassment (based on sex or some other classification listed in Gov. Code, § 12940, subd. (j)(1)) are subject to a FEHA harassment claim. Likewise, because plaintiff’s common law claim is based on sexual harassment, the applicable FEHA public policy applies to employers with less than five employees.

Again, you can read Kim v. Konad USA Distribution, Inc. here.

9th Circuit: $1 in damages....$125,000 Punitive Award OK?

Punitive damages can be unconstitutional when the punishment does not fit the "crime" (or liability).  The Supreme Court noted in BMW v. Gore a long time ago that “[punitive] damages must bear a reasonable relationship to compensatory damages.”  There is case law in which courts held that punitive damages in many cases should not exceed a 1:1 ratio, usually should not exceed 3:1 and pretty much never should exceed 9:1. Further,the Supreme Court stated in another case, State Farm, that “few awards exceeding a single-digit ratio between punitive and compensatory damages . . . will satisfy due process.”

Here's a case that apparently is an exception to the rule. This case was about how a court reaches a proper award of punitive damages when there are no compensatory damages.  ($1.00 to be exact).  

Angela Aguilar sued ASARCO LLC, a mining company,  for sexual harassment.  The allegations included sexual solicitations and a vandalized portable toilet at the work site. Supervision and HR were generally unsympathetic and took practically no action in response to her complaints.  One HR person told her she had to "handle" the 350 lb would-be paramour herself.  

Management did not take action on the basis of another supervisor's rude and obnoxious behavior towards her, apparently contending he was an "equal opportunity a*****" (to use the official employment law legal jargon).  That argument rarely works.

After trial, a jury found in favor of Aguilar on the sexual harassment claim, but not on her constructive termination based claims.  But the jury awarded just $1.00 in damages, apparently believing that although the conduct towards Aguilar was harassment, she suffered no actual harm. The jury, though, decided to punish ASARCO, probably for its less than stellar handling of Aguilar's complaints, and awarded punitive damages of over $800,000.

Under federal law, the maximum punitive damages award on a Title VII claim is $300,000. So, on ASARCO's motion for new trial, the trial court reduced the punitive damages award accordingly.   

ASARCO appealed to the Ninth Circuit, arguing that an award of $300,000 was way too high when the jury awarded $1.00.  The Court of Appeals did not ignore the ratio. In fact, the Court held that courts must consider the Supreme Court's analysis of the ratio.  

Yet, the Court of Appeals found a way to uphold a substantial punitive damages award anyway:  At a ratio of 125,000:1.  Here's how they got there:

Given ASARCO’s highly reprehensible conduct and the presence of a comparable civil penalty in the form of the Title VII damages cap, we conclude that the Constitution does not bar the imposition of a substantial punitive award in this case. But this does not change the fact that a 300,000 to 1 ratio raises our “judicial eyebrow[s].” Gore, 517 U.S. at 583.
* * *
Although we think a ratio higher than 2,500 to one is called for by ASARCO’s conduct, the $300,000 awarded was nonetheless excessive. As we indicated above, no court in a discrimination case has ever upheld a ratio of punitive damages to compensatory damages greater than 125,000 to 1. Many discrimination cases have struck down awards as constitutionally excessive with substantially smaller ratios. See Thomas v. iStar Fin., Inc., 652 F.3d 141, 149–50 (2d Cir. 2011) (holding that a $1.6 million punitive damages award, in comparison to a $280,000 compensatory damages award, violates due process); Mendez-Matos v. Mun. of Guaynabo, 557 F.3d 36, 55 (1st Cir. 2009) (holding that a $350,000 punitive damages award, in comparison to a $35,000 compensatory damages award, violates due process); Bains, 405 F.3d at 776–77 (holding that a $5 million punitive damages award, in comparison to a $50,000 compensatory damages award, violates due process); Williams, 378 F.3d at 798 (holding that a $6,063,750 punitive damages award, in comparison to a $600,000 compensatory damages award, violates due process); Lincoln v. Case, 340 F.3d 283, 294 (5th Cir. 2003) (holding that a $100,000 punitive damages award, in comparison to a $500 compensatory damages award, violates due process); Ross v. Kan. City Power & Light Co., 293 F.3d 1041, 1049 (8th Cir. 2002) (holding that a $120,000 punitive damages award, in comparison to a $6,000 compensatory damages award, violates due process); Rubinstein v. Adm’rs of Tulane Educ. Fund, 218 F.3d 392, 408 (5th Cir. 2000) (holding that a $750,000 punitive damages award, in comparison to a $2,500 compensatory damages award, violates due process).

* * * *

Since nothing compels a particular dollar figure, we conclude that the highest punitive award supportable under due process is $125,000, in accord with the highest ratio we could locate among discrimination cases. Abner, 513 F.3d at 164. We think this is the highest award which maintains the required “reasonable relationship” between compensatory and punitive damages. Gore, 517 U.S. at 580. This award is nonetheless on the order of the damages cap in Title VII and proportional to the reprehensibility of ASARCO’s conduct.

So, here's why I am too dumb to be a judge.  The court cites to abundant case law showing that when a defendant inflicts actual harm - measured in money - it's unconstitutional to award punitive damages in a ratio well below 100:1, or 10:1.  In fact, $100,000 is unconstitutional when the award of actual damages is $500; and $120,000 is unconstitutional when the actual damages are $6,000.  But here, where the Defendant inflicted no actual harm, the punitive damages ratio can be 125,000:1. Does that make sense to you?  

I guess the court was more than a little unimpressed with ASARCO's supervisors' conduct and the corporation's poor handling of the situation.  And rightly so.  But I don't understand how one is able to divine a rule regarding what is "due process." 

We'll see if the Supreme Court takes up the issue of whether punitive damages implicate the Gore Due Process analysis when there is no actual damage. Until then, it looks like the Constitution says punitive damages of $125,000 are permitted when a jury awards $1.00.  

The case is Arizona v. ASARCO LLC and the opinion is here.

Half a SLAPP Still Hurts

Jessica Chang sued her former employer and an individual named Howard Cho for sexual harassment.  Cho counter-sued Chang for IIED and defamation.

Chang believed Cho filed his cross-claim in retaliation for her own.  She filed a motion to strike Cho's cross-claim as a "SLAPP" or Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation.

Cho in part claimed that Chang's discrimination charges filed at the EEOC/DFEH were defamatory.  But Cho also based his cross-claim for defamation in part on statements Chang made to co-workers and a written report she submitted accusing Cho of harassment.  So, the court had different types of conduct to sort through.

Each of the two causes of action in Cho's cross-complaint, defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress, is based on three separate and discrete alleged activities by Chang: (1) Chang‟s discrimination claim filed with the EEOC and DFEH; (2) her written report to Midway management; and (3) her verbal comments to co-workers regarding the November and December incidents.

Cho argued that Chang's statements to other employees about his alleged harassment were not "protected" by either the litigation privilege or the anti-SLAPP provisions.  Therefore, Chang could be sued for slander.   The trial court agreed with Cho, as did the Court of Appeal.

Chang submitted no evidence that her comments to Lee or to other co-workers were made to seek the assistance of any other person as a witness or as a person with an interest in the action. While Chang argues such a rationale, and presumably could have offered evidence to support it, she offered none. Absent such a showing, we agree with the trial court's finding that Chang‟s comments to co-workers were not “in connection with” the issues in her subsequent lawsuit against Cho and, therefore, are not protected activity pursuant to section 425.16.

So, this means that if Chang had demonstrated a closer connection between her formal complaints and her discussions with co-workers, the communications might have been protected.  Because she did not do so, Cho's cross-claim against her could proceed.   Therefore, if this case stands, individual defendants in some cases may get away with cross-claims against plaintiffs who accuse them of sexual harassment.  This does not mean individuals should do so. There is a risk that they will be viewed as vengeful or motivated to deny bad conduct to win the cross-claim.

The trial court and the Court of Appeal had little trouble finding that the administrative charges themselves were covered by the anti-SLAPP statute, as was the letter that Chang wrote to management to complain about sexual harassment.  

The internal complaint was covered because as the court put it: "Where the protected activity is a complaint to management or a government agency, or a lawsuit concerning workplace sexual harassment, it must have a demonstrated nexus with that activity, such as an effort to find witnesses to the same or similar conduct."

So the Court of Appeal decided the anti-SLAPP law barred part of Cho's claims for defamation and IIED. Did that mean the entire cause of action should be struck?  No.  The Court decided that the trial court may stike portions of a claim, and is not required to let the whole case continue.  

Then the Court turned to Chang's request for attorneys' fees, since she prevailed on her motion.  Although the winner of an anti-SLAPP motion is entitled to fees, the trial court denied Chang's claim for them, because she had not "accomplished" enough by striking part of Cho's cross-complaint.  The Court of Appeal allowed this ruling to stand.

This ruling encourages anti-SLAPP motions directed to portions of a cause of action, but then creates a disincentive by denying attorney's fees.  We will see if the parties attempt California Supreme Court review.

This decision is Cho v. Chang and the opinion is here. 

Court of Appeal Affirms Summary Judgment on Sexual Harassment Claim and More

The Court of Appeal's decision in McCoy v. Pacific Maritime Association covers a lot of ground.  The opinion contains analysis of a variety of issues important for pre-trial and trial lawyers alike.

Here are the main issues -

1. The plaintiff's allegations of hostile work environment harassment and intentional infliction of emotional distress were not severe / pervasive / extreme / outrageous enough to reach the jury.  The plaintiff's claim is summarized here:

Appellant testified that she was harassed and shunned throughout her training period. Her complaints centered around one vessel planner in particular, Anthony Spanjol. Appellant testified that Spanjol would disrespect her by talking down to her and by putting his feet up on her work space. On one occasion, he yelled at her in front of other employees and called her stupid. One of appellant‟s supervisors, Marc Izzo, witnessed this incident, but left the room rather than address it. Appellant testified that when she complained about the incident she was told that she should go home and that Spanjol‟s behavior was just a part of his personality. She also stated that Spanjol often made racially derogatory remarks and engaged in sexually offensive behavior. He would comment on the buttocks of other female employees once they left the room, using terms like "„nigger ass‟" and "„J-Lo ass.‟" On at least one occasion, Spanjol also made crude gestures toward a woman when the woman‟s back was turned. He also mocked these women in appellant‟s presence. During another incident, appellant asked Spanjol a question regarding the unloading of a ship, but he ignored her and "never spoke to [her] again." Appellant testified that shortly after this incident she decided she could no longer handle the work environment and quit her job entirely.

The court held that the harassment was not severe or pervasive enough to require a jury's consideration. The court also held that the allegations of co-worker harassment were not actionable because the plaintiff did not prove that her employer knew or should have known of the conduct directed toward her.

2.  The court held that the trial court properly excluded evidence of harassment of other women because the only claim tried was retaliation.

3.   "Me-too" evidence of retaliation against other women should have been admitted.

4.   The plaintiff claimed denial of promotion based on retaliation. The court held she was entitled to damages if she prevailed even if she did not prove constructive discharge. The amount of those damages would have to be limited to what she actually lost (the difference between her pay and the pay if she had been promoted).  I don't understand how she would be entitled to that differential after she quit if it's not a constructive discharge.  If you voluntarily quit, you no longer receive pay...  I know, there I go thinking again.

5.   The court held that PMA, an association that negotiated collective bargaining agreements, was not the plaintiff's employer, and therefore could not be held liable for retaliation or other FEHA based actions.

So, lots of reasons to cite this case.  It's long, but worth reading.  The opinion in McCoy v. Pacific Maritime Association is here.

DGV
 

Catching Up - Friday Pot Pourri

Here are a few of the cases I should have mentioned, but missed:

In Lui v. City and County of San Francisco (opinion here), a police officer suffered a serious heart attack. He had a number of physical ailments and sought a job that did not involve the physical requirements of a police officer.  Under  a new directive, San Francisco police officers, even those assigned to administrative duties, had to perform certain functions. Upholding the trial court, the court of appeal decided that the officer could not succeed on claims for disability discrimination, failure to accommodate, or failure to engage in the interactive process.  The officer could not perform several essential job functions. Although this case arises in the special context of police officers, the court's analysis of what is essential is important.

***

The Ninth Circuit held that Jennifer Westendorf did not make out a case of sexual harassment sufficient to get by summary judgment (!)  The comments and incidents she described, even though sexual in nature, and  though some were pretty darn risque I tell ya, were not severe or pervasive enough.  However, the court did allow the retaliation to go forward. The case is Westendorf v. West Coast Contractors (opinion here).

****

The Court of Appeal decided that Bingham McCutchen's arbitration agreement was unenforceable.  Interestingly, the arbitration agreement had a Massachusetts choice of law clause.  Unlike in most employment law-related cases, the court enforced the choice of law clause, over Bingham's objection. Why?   Glad you asked: Mass. law precluded agreements to arbitrate discrimination claims unless they were specifically addressed in detail in the arbitration agreement.  Too bad a non-compete was not involved. The court probably would not have recited how much California law loves choice of law clauses.  Anyway, the Court decided that the Massachusetts court rulings were not preempted by the Federal Arbitration Act and, therefore, the arbitration agreement was unenforceable. Be careful of choice of law clauses, they may well be enforced!  This case is Harris v. Bingham McCutchen et al. and the opinion is here.

Court of Appeal: Discharge of Executive Uncooperative in Investigation

is perfectly legal.

Applied Signal fired John McGrory.  One of his reports, Dana Thomas, complained to human resources that McGrory harassed / discriminated against her because of her sex / sexual orientation.  Applied hired an outside investigator.   McGrory did not like the investigator, but she exonerated him of mistreating Thomas.  She did find, though, that McGrory was untruthful and uncooperative during the investigation.  She also found that McGrory violated the company's anti-harassment policy because he made off-color jokes related to sex and national origin.

Applied fired McGrory, not for discrimination or harassment against Thomas, but for his lack of cooperation and deception during the investigation.  He sued Applied Signal, claiming not only wrongful termination, bur also sex discrimination and defamation.  He believed he was disfavored because of his male sex, that even at-will employees are entitled to notice of an investigation, and more.

McGrory argued Allied could not fire him for participating in the investigation, “'The public policy of California is to shield anyone participating in an investigation of discrimination from the possibility of retaliation,' presumably even if the participant is uncooperative and untruthful."

Wrong.  I have come across people who refused to participate in investigations without their lawyer, or simply were uncooperative.  I have heard some people question whether it is OK to fire someone for refusing to cooperate in an investigation.  (They don't read the blog, but maybe they should. Just sayin').

Anyway, the court of appeal has laid that issue to rest:

refusing to participate in or cooperate with an investigation into a discrimination claim is not participation or assistance and is not a protected activity. (Alack v. Beau Rivage Resorts, Inc. (S.D. Miss. 2003) 286 F.Supp.2d 771, 775; Bray v. Tenax Corp. (E.D. N.C. 1995) 905 F.Supp. 324, 328.)

Here's another news flash to those employees who lie during an investigation. They have no protection, either:

The participation immunity does not prohibit an employer from imposing discipline for an employee‟s misbehavior during an internal investigation, such as attempting to deceive the investigator. (Cf. Vasconcelos v. Meese, supra, 907 F.2d 111, 113.) “Lying in an internal investigation is disruptive of workplace discipline.” (Hatmaker, supra, 619 F.3d 741, 746.) “[W]hether to fire an employee for lying to the employer in the course of the business‟s conduct of an important internal investigation is basically a business decision; this decision, as with most business decisions, is not for the courts to second-guess as a kind of super-personnel department.” (Total System Services, supra, 221 F.3d 1171, 1176.)

McGrory also argued that the employer could not lawfully rely on fear of litigation with the accuser as a basis for firing him.  Really?  The Court of Appeal held that fear of liability also is a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for firing an accused harasser:

Employee also argues that his “relatively innocent behavior” could not justify “a sexual harassment claim.” Employee provides no authority requiring an Employer to retain an at-will employee until his conduct creates civil liability. 

The court also held that the VP of HR's explanation to another employee that McGrory was fired for being uncooperative was privileged and made without malice. No slander for you.

This is a significant case about the meaning of employment at will and the employer's freedom to discipline and discharge those who violate policies.

The opinion is McGrory v. Applied Signal Tech. and the opinion is here.

Court of Appeal Upholds SLAPP Against Accused Harasser's Counterclaim

Aber sued Comstock for sexual harassment among other things.  This did not sit well with Comstock, who sued Aber back, claiming defamation among other things.

Aber then filed a motion to strike Comstock's cross-claim. She claimed his lawsuit was a "SLAPP" or a retaliatory action against Aber.  The trial court agreed and the Court of Appeal affirmed.

If someone sues you and you return the favor, your lawsuit may be subject to a motion to strike as a "SLAPP" (strategic lawsuit against public participation).  To overcome the anti-SLAPP motion, you have to prove that you have a good chance of winning your case.   Comstock apparently did not do that, which is why his suit was dismissed.  If you file a lawsuit that is dismissed as a SLAPP, you owe the other side attorney's fees.   So, be careful before filing cross claims. It's probably wise to win your case first and then sue for malicious prosecution.

Anyway, what makes this case even more interesting is that  the Court of Appeal held that the harassment victim's pre-litigation statements made to company HR investigators were covered by the anti-SLAPP statute as protected conduct.  That means, for example, that if an employee participates in a sexual harassment investigation and reports misconduct against another employee, any defamation lawsuit will be examined as a potential SLAPP.  Even witnesses who report to HR likely will be protected from retaliatory defamation lawsuits brought by the accused harasser.  While that is good news for witnesses and victims of discrimination or harassment, it is bad news for those who are wrongly accused of harassment, who will have a tougher time protecting themselves from career-ending accusations.

This case is Aber v. Comstock and the opinion is here.

Court of Appeal: Employee May Use Ralph Act in Certain Sexual Harassment Cases

Sylvia Ventura was a custodian, working for American Building Maintenance or ABM.  According to her lawsuit, she suffered serious harassment, including touching, threats, etc.  She sued not under the Fair Employment and Housing Act, but under what is known as the Ralph Act, Civil Code Section 51.7.   That section provides in part:

All persons within the jurisdiction of this state have the right to be free from any violence, or intimidation by threat of violence, committed against their persons or property because of political affiliation, or on account of any characteristic listed or defined in subdivision (b) or (e) of Section 51, or position in a labor dispute, or because another person perceives them to have one or more of those characteristics.

So, one of the characteristics in Section 51(b) or (e) is sex. Therefore, violent acts that would be consistent with "sexual harassment" in employment law fall within this definition. 

But the Ralph Act does not require employees to file an administrative charge, the remedies are different, and the statute of limitations is longer. There also is no requirement that the offending conduct satisfy the "hostile work environment" standard applicable to sexual harassment cases.

Upholding a jury's verdict, the court of appeal decided (2-1) that the Ralph Act applies in employment cases, despite overlap with the FEHA. There is precedent for this conclusion.  But the court also held that the Act covered the conduct alleged, even though there was little to no evidence that the harasser was motivated by negative feelings about the plaintiff's sex, i.e., hate.  Rather, the evidence at trial showed that he was enamored / in love, which caused him to engage in inappropriate conduct. 

As the dissent points out, the majority's decision may expand the Ralph Act to cover more than it was intended to address.  It also potentially creates a major collision with the Fair Employment and Housing Act for the reasons I explained above. 

The rest of the opinion, unfortunately, is an indictment of the defense attorneys' advocacy.  For example, the court of appeal noted that the jury found for the plaintiff on a negligence claim, which should have been barred by Workers' Compensation preemption. The court of appeal held that issue was waived because it was not argued in the trial court.  The court of appeal noted other waivers and alleged errors as well, including the failure to differentiate among the defense entities to identify the employer and exonerate the non-employers.  Reading this opinion, one can't help but conclude that getting this employment law litigation business right is tough. There are a lot of time-sensitive substantive and procedural matters to juggle, especially at trial.

The case is Ventura v. ABM Industries Inc., et al. and the opinion is here.






 

Court of Appeal Imposes Franchisor Liability for Franchisee Harassment Claim

A Domino's franchisee's employee claimed sexual harassment against her supervisor and her employer, the franchisee (Sui Juris).  However, she also sued franchisor Domino's Pizza.  Normally, only the "employer" can be held liable for FEHA violations.  But the victim, Patterson, claimed that Domino's was also her employer because of its control over franchisee Sui Juris. The trial court disagreed, but the Court of Appeal reversed.

The appellate court decided there at least was a triable issue of fact regarding whether the franchisor exercised sufficient control over Sui Juris' employment practices to make it an "employer."  The court did not apply "single employer" or "joint" employer standards that normally apply to these analyses.  Nor did the Court analyze franchisor liability under FEHA's text.  Rather, the Court of Appeal applied an independent contractor-type analysis applying to torts generally:

Whether a franchisor is vicariously liable for injuries to a franchisee's employee depends on the nature of the franchise relationship.  . . . ."The general rule is where a franchise agreement gives the franchisor the right to complete or substantial control over the franchisee, an agency relationship exists." . . . "'[I]t is the right to control the means and manner in which the result is achieved that is significant in determining whether a principal-agency relationship exists.'" (Ibid.) Consequently, a franchisee may be found to be an agent of the franchisor even where the franchise agreement states it is an independent contractor.  .... If the franchisor has substantial control over the local operations of the franchisee, it may potentially face liability for the actions of the franchisee's employees. 

"[T]he franchisor's interest in the reputation of its entire system allows it to exercise certain controls over the enterprise without running the risk of transforming its independent contractor franchisee into an agent."  ... Consequently, it may control its trademarks, products and the quality of its services. But the franchisor may be subject to vicarious liability where it assumes substantial control over the franchisee's local operation, its management-employee relations or employee discipline. 

Applying this rule, the Court decided there should be a trial on whether Domino's was sufficiently controlling of Sui Juris to the considered an "employer" and liable for the harassment.

Significantly, Domino's then argued it could not be liable because it had no advance knowledge there was sexual harassment at that franchise.  But the Court of Appeal ruled that the franchisor could be held strictly liable for the harassment of the franchisee's supervisor. 

Anyway, this decision opens up a significant avenue for franchisor liability when it exercises tight control over a franchisee's operations. 

It will be interesting to see if the California Supreme Court takes this one up or if Domino's seeks rehearing. The standard for liability under FEHA is usually analyzed under whether the corporate entity is an "employer."  At the same time, FEHA does impose liability on "agents" of the employer.   

The case is Patterson v. Domino's Pizza, LLC and the opinion is here.

Court of Appeal: "Me Too" Evidence of Harassment Admissible to Prove "Intent"

So, a plaintiff in a sexual harassment case attempts to introduce evidence that the harasser harassed other employees, but not in the plaintiff's presence, and that the conduct was not directed to the plaintiff. 
Can the plaintiff use that information to prove she was harassed?  Basically, the plaintiff wants to say, "the defendant is a bad person because he mistreated others; therefore, it is more likely that he harassed me even though he denied doing so."  That's what's called "character evidence," and it's usually inadmissible.

Except when it's admissible. The Evidence Code allows for admission of "character" evidence if used to prove intent, motivation, common plan, and other things. 

Thomas Anton was a lawyer. Lorraine Pantoja was a member of the staff. Pantoja alleged Anton touched her inappropriately, used slurs and profanity, and engaged in other conduct amounting to sexual harassment. Anton denied engaging in those behaviors.

Pantoja's lawyers attempted to introduce other female employees' testimony that Anton engaged in similar conduct towards them.  Anton successfully had that conduct excluded as character evidence. But Pantoja's lawyers argued that evidence was necessary to prove Anton's intent.  A jury decided in favor of Anton. Pantoja appealed.

The court of appeal reversed the defense verdict and judgment. The court decided that the trial court erroneously did not permit "me too" evidence to prove Anton's anti-female intent. The evidence also was admissible to impeach Anton's denials. A significant issue was whether Anton used profanity "at the situation" or directed towards females.

This case is significant for a few reasons:

1.  The appellate court's discussion of intent suggests that the plaintiff must prove intent to win in a sexual harassment case. I think the court meant that the harassment must be "based on" the plaintiff's sex, race, etc.  But intent to harm or to discriminate actually is not an element of a harassment case.  If conduct has the "effect" of creating an objectively hostile work environment in the eyes of a reasonable victim, that's supposed to be enough.

2.. The court did not mention whether a defendant would be entitled to a special jury instruction explaining that the purpose of the testimony is not to establish the plaintiff's claim of a hostile environment or damages. Defendants certainly should request such an instruction, or the jury may be confused into thinking that the plaintiff can prove her own work environment was hostile because of the way others were treated, even outside of her presence.

3.  The court does not take into account the possibility that if a bunch of people testify about the defendant, the jury will find in the plaintiff's favor just to punish the defendant, even if the evidence of conduct against the plaintiff is thin.  The court did not draw the line at all - allowing evidence by employees who did not even work at the same time as the plaintiff.

4.  This case makes it highly dangerous to retain an employee who has previously been found to violate an anti-harassment policy. If all evidence of harassment conduct against other employees is admissible, even offered by employees who did not work at the same time as the plaintiff, then it will be a big risk to permit an employee previously identified as a  "harasser" to stay employed..

The case is Pantoja v. Anton and the opinion is here.

Court of Appeal Rejects Same-sex Harassment Claim

As stated by the court of appeal,

Patrick Kelley was an apprentice ironworker employed by respondent The Conco Companies (Conco). He complained that he was subjected to a barrage of sexually demeaning comments and gestures by his male supervisor, and later to similar comments by male coworkers, and that he was also subjected to physical threats by coworkers in retaliation for his complaints about his supervisor. Kelley‘s employer changed his work site to separate him from his harassers, but Kelley was later suspended by his union from its apprenticeship program rendering him ineligible for employment. After the suspension expired, he was not rehired by Conco.

Sounds like sexual harassment? Wrong. The court of appeal decided that the supervisor's verbal abuse was not truly based on Kelley's sex. Therefore, although rude, the conduct was not actionable under the Fair Employment and Housing Act:

The sine qua non of any sexual harassment claim is that the plaintiff suffered discrimination because of sex. (Lyle, supra, 38 Cal.4th at pp. 279–280; Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services, Inc. (1998) 523 U.S. 75, 81 (Oncale).) ― ‗ ―The critical issue . . . is whether members of one sex are exposed to disadvantageous terms or conditions of employment to which members of the other sex are not exposed.‖ ‘ [Citations.]‖ (Lyle, at pp. 279–280, quoting Oncale, at p. 80.) A FEHA plaintiff must show ― ‗ ―that gender is a substantial factor in the discrimination, and that if the plaintiff ‗had been a man she would not have been treated in the same manner.‘ [Citation.]‘ [Citations.] Accordingly, it is the disparate treatment of an employee on the basis of sex . . . that is the essence of a sexual harassment claim.

The court then surveyed the law and held that sexual harassment is not actionable under FEHA unless there is some link to sexual desire, or treatment that occurs only because of the victim's sex.  That is, merely because Kelley's boss used vicious slurs against Kelley, calling him a number of names and using sexually suggestive language, the boss did so out of anger, and not sexual desire or motivation.

The court, however, revived Kelley's retaliation claim because even though Kelley did not have a viable harassment claim, he had a good faith claim of retaliation.

This case, if it stays on the books, may change some folks' understanding of what "harassment" is.  But it should not change employers' responses to the kind of conduct that occurred in the facts of the opinion, nor should employers rely on this opinion as a way to give a harasser a free pass.  Trust me, when you read the facts, you'll see what I mean.

The case is Kelley v. The Conco Companies, Inc. and the opinion is here.

Court of Appeal: Sexual Harassment Claim Untimely

You have to file an administrative charge with the Department of Fair Employment and Housing within a year of the last act about which you claim is harassment, discrimination, or retaliation. So, when Irene Trovato testified at her deposition that the last time Michael Allyn harassed or retaliated against her was January 31, 2007, the charge she filed on May 8, 2008, was untimely.

In opposition to her employer's and Allyn's summary judgment motion, she submitted a declaration under penalty of perjury in which she said that the harassment continued until she left her employment in May 2007 (which would have rendered her charge timely fled). But, she contradicted her clear deposition testimony, which you cannot do.
Then, Trovato claimed the "continuing violation doctrine," which has gutted the statute of limitations in these types of cases, rendered her claim timely.  But the court of appeal said the doctrine did not apply:

 The case is Trovato v. Becton Coulter, Inc. and the opinion is here.

Trovato also argues that she still reported to Allyn after January 31, 2007, until she resigned in May 2007, and that this assignment alone—without any other evidence—was sufficient to constitute harassment or retaliation. There is no authority for this argument, and its acceptance would extend the statute of limitations indefinitely.

The conclusory statements in Trovato’s declaration are not sufficient to raise a triable issue of material fact on the statute of limitations issue, and she cannot defeat the grant of summary judgment by contradicting her sworn deposition testimony on material points in a later-filed declaration. (Shin v. Ahn (2007) 42 Cal.4th 482, 500, fn. 12; D’Amico v. Board of Medical Examiners (1974) 11 Cal.3d 1, 22; Whitmire v. Ingersoll-Rand Co. (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 1078, 1087.)

Ninth Circuit and Female on Male Sexual Harassment

The EEOC sued on behalf of Lamas, a male worker at Las Vegas' airport. He worked for a service company called Prospect Airport Services. Over time, a female, married employee,Munoz, openly solicited Lamas for sex and a relationship. When Lamas rebuffed him, she recruited co-workers to help. He steadfastly told her he wasn't interested.

Lamas ultimately complained. The first supervisor said she'd talk to Munoz, but didn't. The senior Prospect manager told Lamas it was a "personal" issue but that he would talk to Munoz as a "favor." He actually did talk with Munoz, but she was undeterred.

Lamas over time became upset and offended, his work performance suffered, and - yep - Prospect fired him.

So, the district court held the work environment was insufficiently hostile. The Ninth Circuit reversed. The court went through each element of a harassment claim and found Lamas satisfied each one at least enough to avoid Prospect's motion for summary judgment.

The opinion of course is interesting because it involves a female harassing a male. For readers of this blog, though, it's a reminder of how unsophisticated line management is about harassment. Had the sexes been reversed, it's pretty safe to assume management would not have been so cavalier. Lamas had written evidence of Munoz's come-ons. Management simply did not take him seriously, but then fired him when his performance deteriorated. Jeez. If they're conducting training at Prospect, it's not sinking in or it's not effective.

The opinion is EEOC v. Prospect Airport Services, Inc. and the opinion is here.

Ninth Circuit: Fired Harassers Lose Sex Discrimination Claim

The plaintiffs were males who worked for Executive Jet. They were fired after an investigation revealed they engaged in certain inappropriate conduct that violated the Company's anti-harassment policy. The female who complained filed a charge with the EEOC, which found cause to believe a violation of Title VII occurred. The male employees claimed that the female was a willing participant and engaged in the same conduct of which she complained.

The males sued for, among other things, sex discrimination. They claimed that Executive Jet fired male employees for sex-based conduct, but not females who engaged in similar conduct.

The court engaged in detailed analysis regarding whether the male and female employees were "similarly situated," but found that they were not. The males never complained about harassment. The female did. Although the presence of a complaint by one group is not per se enough to render employees non-similar, that was enough to render their situations different in this case.

The court's analysis also included whether the EEOC's probable cause finding should be admitted as evidence that the males' conduct warranted action taken against them. The court of appeal reaffirmed its rule that EEOC probable cause determinations may be admissible in some circumstances, particularly in summary judgment proceedings and bench trials, where there is little chance of prejudice.

The case is Hawn v. Executive Jet and the opinion is here.

California Supreme Court Rejects Sexual Harassment and Intentional Infliction Claims

The California Supreme Court decided a non-employment case that will have employment law ripple effects.

Suzan Hughes was the divorced widow of Mark Hughes, founder of Herbalife. Mark left a trust of $350 million to his son Alex. Suzan was Alex's guardian. One of the trustees was Christopher Pair, then CEO of Herbalife. The trustees and Suzan had a tumultuous relationship and much litigation. At one point, Pair apparently indicated interest in having a sexual relationship with Hughes. He made some offensive and crude remarks to her regarding his desires. He may have suggested that if she slept with him, he would approve an expenditure of $80,000 for a month's rental on a beach house in Malibu, for Alex (natch).

So, Hughes sued Pair under Civil Code section 51.9, which prohibits sexual harassment outside the employment context by certain vendors / suppliers in various professional business relationships, such as doctors, lawyers, accountants, and trustees.

The lower courts and the Supreme Court agreed that the lewd and crude conduct was not sufficient to constitute "sexual harassment" To get there, the Supreme Court expressly held that harassment under 51.9 is analyzed exactly the same as under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (and Title VII). So, this case is relevant to employment. Of note, because harassment must be "pervasive" or "severe," it will be tough to prove a violation of section 51.9 based on occasional interactions with a covered business' employees. (Normally, one will interact in the workplace more frequently than with a third party.)

The Court also held that Hughes' claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress was barred because the alleged conduct was not sufficient extreme and outrageous, and because Hughes and not proved she suffered "severe" emotional distress.

The opinion is Hughes v. Pair and the opinion is here.