Frank Estrada was a volunteer for some 17 years. The police force ended his engagement after he was investigated for some misconduct related to his regular job.
He sued for disability discrimination under the Fair Employment and Housing Act. The court had to decide whether Estrada was an "employee." (Only applicants/employees can sue under FEHA for disability discrimination).
Agreeing with the trial court, the Court of Appeal said that Estrada was not an employee. The city did not "appoint" him to an employee position. That the city chose to extend workers' compensation benefits to its volunteers was a policy decision, the court said. Here is the punchline:
Estrada was a volunteer who served without remuneration. He was appointed to a volunteer position, rather than to a position in the classified civil service. Accordingly, Estrada was not an employee of the City. (Board Civil Service Rules,§ 1.17.) Therefore, Estrada is incapable of maintaining a cause of action against the City for disability discrimination pursuant to the FEHA.
So, employers may be able to argue that it is possible to cover volunteers with workers' compensation insurance and yet maintain non-employee, volunteer status. But, this case was decided in great part based on Los Angeles' status as a charter city. So, a private sector employer could come out with a different result. Be careful.
This case is Estrada v. City of Los Angeles and the opinion is here.
