California Supreme Court Washes Unclean Hands. And After Acquired Evidence, Too

The defense of "after acquired evidence" is a variation on the equitable defense of "unclean hands." A party's "unclean hands" are supposed to "close the courthouse door" to those guilty of wrongdoing directly related to the heart of his or her claims.  "Unclean hands" is supposed to apply only when the wrongdoing goes to the heart of the claims the employee is asserting.

After-acquired evidence is a broader concept, in that the focus is on whether the employer would have denied employment to the employee, had the employer known about the misconduct during the hiring process or before termination.  As the Supreme Court explained:

The doctrine of after-acquired evidence refers to an employer‟s discovery, after an allegedly wrongful termination of employment or refusal to hire, of information that would have justified a lawful termination or refusal to hire.

Unlike unclean hands, the after-acquired information may not have to cut to the heart of the employee's case. But the employer must prove that the employee would not have been hired or would have lost his or her job.

In the employment law context, for example, a California court once held that someone who lied on his employment application, that he was not convicted of a crime, was not permitted to sue for martial status discrimination under the Fair Employment and Housing Act. The court reasoned the employee was not entitled to the job in the first place because of his misconduct, because he never would have been hired. (Camp v. Jeffer Mangels et al.) Another court held that an employee who was unauthorized to work in the U.S. could not proceed on termination-based claims because she was not entitled to the job in the first place.  (Murillo v. Rite-Stuff Foods).

Under federal employment laws, such as Title VII, however, these defenses can limit damages available, but are not complete bars to liability. McKennon v. Nashville Banner Publishing Co. (1995) 513 U.S. 352.  That is, if the employer proves it would have fired an employee had it known about information acquired after the termination, the employer can argue that damages should be reduced, but cannot assert a complete defense.

The California Supreme Court just decided in Salas v. Sierra Chemical that the federal rule is the better one.

Vicente Salas intentionally and repeatedly used someone else's social security number to obtain employment with Sierra Chemical Company. He signed an I-9 form under penalty of perjury, attesting to the documents he submitted in support of his eligibility to work in the U.S.  Because his job with Sierra was seasonal, Salas repeatedly misrepresented his social security number, every time he re-applied for seasonal work.

Mirabile dictu, the social security bureaucracy figured out that Salas's social security number was bogus. Of course, that was the social security office of many years ago; the one that issued "no-match" letters and required an explanation from the employees whose numbers did not match their names.  Sierra Chemical apparently didn't do anything about the employees with no-match letters.  They allowed Salas and the other employees to continue working.

Meanwhile, in 2006, Salas injured himself  He returned to work the next day, with restrictions, which Sierra honored.  He returned to full duty a couple of months later, in June. But in August, he hurt himself again, and required modified duty until December, when he was laid off for the season (as he had been in the past).

Salas went to work for another company after the layoff.  But then his Sierra managers called him and asked if he wanted to return to work. They then told him he would have to have a release from his doctor - to full duty - before he could return. (Spot the issue, accommodation mavens).

Salas told his boss he would try to get the release by June 2007. The boss said he would hold open Salas's job.  But Salas did not contact the boss again.  Instead, he sued.  He claimed denial of reasonable accommodation under the Fair Employment and Housing Act, and retaliation for filing a workers' compensation claim, in violation of public policy.

As the trial date approached, both parties filed motions in limine regarding evidence.  Salas acknowledge it is a crime (illegal) under federal and state law:

for a person to use false identification documents to conceal the person‟s true citizenship or resident alien status. Plaintiff stated that he would testify at trial and assert his privilege against self-incrimination under the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution if asked about his immigration status. He asked that he be allowed to assert the privilege outside the jury's presence and that the court and counsel not comment at trial on his assertion of the privilege. 

So, Salas' disclosure for the first time prompted the defense to investigate the bona fides of Salas' immigration status.  The defendant found out that Salas' social security number actually belonged to a person on the East Coast.

Sierra moved for summary judgment on the ground that Salas falsified his employment authorization paperwork. The company submitted a sworn statement from the real owner of the social security number and of the company's president, who said they would have fired Salas had they known of his deception.

Yet the trial court denied Sierra's motion for summary judgment.  The Court of Appeal, on the other hand, held Salas's claims were barred. Per the Supreme Court:

The Court of Appeal reasoned that the doctrine of after-acquired evidence barred plaintiff‟s causes of action because he had misrepresented to defendant employer his eligibility under federal law to work in the United States. It also held that plaintiff‟s claims were subject to the doctrine of unclean hands because he had falsely used another person's Social Security number in seeking employment with defendant, he was disqualified under federal law from working in the United States, and his conduct exposed defendant to penalties under federal law.

The lower court's decision was entirely consistent with California law up to this point.

But the California Supreme Court disagreed with the Court of Appeal and held that "after-acquired evidence" or "unclean hands" defenses are not complete bars to liability under FEHA.  Rather, the Court decided, these defenses in some cases may be used only to limit damages. As a result, summary judgment based on the defenses no longer is an option.

California law protects  immigrant workers who are unauthorized to work by guaranteeing them access to the same employment laws that protect those legally entitled to work.  So, Salas argued, if late-discovered unauthorized status resulted in application of unclean hands, these worker would be barred from bringing wrongful termination claims.

The Court agreed with Salas. First, the Court decided that federal immigration laws do not preempt California's laws preserving illegal aliens' employment-based claims. If federal law preempted California law, the California statutes would not impede the application of unclean hands. The Court engaged in a lengthy analysis of federal preemption jurisprudence, concluding that California was free to pass laws guaranteeing illegal aliens the right to benefit from employment law on the same terms as authorized workers.

The Court could have limited its discussion to whether unclean hands / after acquired evidence may be applied to hose who lie about their immigration status / identification documents.  But no.

The Court then examined, and gutted, the application of after-acquired evidence / unclean hands in FEHA cases generally.  The Court decided that the defenses are not complete bars in Fair Employment and Housing Act cases because employers should not be insulated from liability for making unlawful employment decisions, even those taken against employees who should never have been employed in the first place.  The Court reasoned that the employer made the challenged decisions without knowing of the employee's misconduct that would have led to termination or refusal to hire.

The Court then decided that, like under the federal rule, employees found to have engaged in misconduct that would have disqualified them from employment should be limited in their potential remedies:

Generally, the employee's remedies should not afford compensation for loss of employment during the period after the employer‟s discovery of the evidence relating to the employee‟s wrongdoing. When the employer shows that information acquired after the employee‟s claim has been made would have led to a lawful discharge or other employment action, remedies such as reinstatement, promotion, and pay for periods after the employer learned of such information would be “inequitable and pointless,” as they grant remedial relief for a period during which the plaintiff employee was no longer in the defendant‟s employment and had no right to such employment. (McKennon, supra, 513 U.S. at p. 362.)

The remedial relief generally should compensate the employee for loss of employment from the date of wrongful discharge or refusal to hire to the date on which the employer acquired information of the employee‟s wrongdoing or ineligibility for employment. Fashioning remedies based on the relative equities of the parties prevents the employer from violating California‟s FEHA with impunity while also preventing an employee or job applicant from obtaining lost wages compensation for a period during which the employee or applicant would not in any event have been employed by the employer. In an appropriate case, it would also prevent an employee from recovering any lost wages when the employee's wrongdoing is particularly egregious.

The lower courts apparently are left to decide what an "appropriate case" or "egregious" means in this context.

The significance of the Court's no-preemption holding now becomes clear.  If preemption applies, it is likely that federal law would preclude any post-termination or back pay to an employee who falsifies employment documents to obtain employment.  Given the California Supreme Court decided state law is not preempted, its holding under state law is viable.  But if the U.S. Supreme Court hears this case and decides federal immigration law applies, it could be that unauthorized workers are entitled to no post-termination pay, but could still recover for pre-termination damages due to unlawful harassment, for example.

The Court then separated the "unclean hands" defense from the "after-acquired evidence" analysis.  But then the Court simply said that the defense of unclean hands, normally a complete bar, would not apply in FEHA cases either, but again authorized trial courts to fashion appropriate equitable remedies.  It's hard to tell, but it seems like the courts will apply the same analysis whether the defense is expressed as "unclean hands" or "after-acquired evidence."  Again, "unclean hands" likely will apply only when the misconduct relates to serious application fraud, but it appears not to matter anymore.

Retired Justice Joyce Kennard wrote the opinion for 5 justices; her final gift to the plaintiffs' bar.  Retiring Justice Baxter wrote a concurrence/dissent, joined by Justice Ming Chin, the editor of the "leading employment law treatise" in the words of a recent court opinion.  Justice Baxter opined that federal immigration law indeed precludes any remedy to employees who falsify eligibility to work in the U.S. And Justice Baxter pointed out that the "unclean hands" defense, when applicable, generally is a complete bar to a plaintiff's access to court.

The opinion in Salas v. Sierra Chemical Co. is here.

U.S. Supreme Court: President's "Recess Appointments" to NLRB Were Invalid

The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously held that the President made invalid "recess appointments" to the National Labor Relations Board in January 2012. The Senate declared itself in recess for three-day periods during that month. The President then appointed three out of five members to the NLRB.

The Court's judgment - that the recess appointments were invalid - is unanimous. But only 5 out of 9 justices joined the majority opinion, written by Justice Breyer (joined by Justices Kennedy, Kagan, Sotomayor, and Ginsburg), Four justices, led by Justice Scalia (with Justices Thomas, CJ Roberts, and Alito), issued a separate opinion, disagreeing with the majority's conclusions regarding when recess appointments are valid.

This opinion is over 50 pages long, and it is mostly devoted to the history of the Constitution's recess appointments clause, and the way it has been used historically.  The upshot, however, is that the President has a lot of power to make recess appointments, but there has to be a sufficiently long recess. Moreover, the house of Congress that is controlled by the political party not in power may re-call the Congress from recess and thwart recess appointments. Checks and balances.

Because the appointments were invalid, the NLRB operated without a quorum for several months.  As a result, hundreds of decisions are invalid. It remains to be seen precisely what the NLRB will do with those decisions. The Board currently has a full compliment of members.  Therefore, recent decisions issued since the Senate confirmed the 5 members will be valid and enforceable.  We will update what happens next when we find out.

This case is National Labor Relations Board v. Noel Canning and the opinion is here. 

CA Supreme Court: Class Action Waivers in Arbitration Are Valid; Overrules Gentry; But...

... not all good news for employers or arbitration fans.

The California Supreme Court ruled that the Federal Arbitration Act preempts its previous decision in Gentry v. Superior Court (2007) 42 Cal.4th 443, which invalidated class action waivers in most wage-hour matters.

Here are the facts per the Court:

Plaintiff Arshavir Iskanian worked as a driver for defendant CLS Transportation Los Angeles, LLC (CLS) from March 2004 to August 2005. In December 2004, Iskanian signed a “Proprietary Information and Arbitration Policy/Agreement” providing that “any and all claims” arising out of his employment were to be submitted to binding arbitration before a neutral arbitrator. The arbitration agreement provided for reasonable discovery, a written award, and judicial review of the award; costs unique to arbitration, such as the arbitrator’s fee, would be paid by CLS. The arbitration agreement also contained a class and representative action waiver that said: “[E]xcept as otherwise required under applicable law, (1) EMPLOYEE and COMPANY expressly intend and agree that class action and representative action procedures shall not be asserted, nor will they apply, in any arbitration pursuant to this Policy/Agreement; (2) EMPLOYEE and COMPANY agree that each will not assert class action or representative action claims against the other in arbitration or otherwise; and (3) each of EMPLOYEE and COMPANY shall only submit their own, individual claims in arbitration and will not seek to represent the interests of any other person.”

The Supreme Court previously held in Gentry, cited above, that most of these class action waivers would be void and contrary to public policy. As a result, courts invalidated many class action waivers, despite the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion (2011) 563 U.S. __. In Concepcion, the U.S. Supremes held that the Federal Arbitration Act preempts state law rules that invalidate class action waivers.

So, in this case, Iskanian v. CLS Transportation Los Angeles, opinion here, the Court recognized that Gentry could not survive Concepcion.

The high court in Concepcion made clear that even if a state law rule against consumer class waivers were limited to “class proceedings [that] are necessary to prosecute small-dollar claims that might otherwise slip through the legal system,” it would still be preempted because states cannot require a procedure that interferes with fundamental attributes of arbitration “even if it is desirable for unrelated reasons.”

The California Supreme Court also rejected Iskanian's argument that class action waivers are illegal under the National Labor Relations Act.  The National Labor Relations Board so held in D.R. Horton Inc. & Cuda (2012) 357 NLRB No. 184.  But the courts have not agreed. In fact, the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit refused to enforce the decision.  The Supreme Court joined the other courts in rejecting the NLRB's rule:

We agree with the Fifth Circuit that, in light of Concepcion, the Board’s rule is not covered by the FAA’s savings clause. Concepcion makes clear that even if a rule against class waivers applies equally to arbitration and nonarbitration agreements, it nonetheless interferes with fundamental attributes of arbitration and, for that reason, disfavors arbitration in practice. (Concepcion, supra, 563 U.S. at pp. __–__ [131 S.Ct. at pp. 1750–1752].) Thus, if the Board’s rule is not precluded by the FAA, it must be because the NLRA conflicts with and takes precedence over the FAA with respect to the enforceability of class action waivers in employment arbitration agreements. As the Fifth Circuit explained, neither the NLRA’s text nor its legislative history contains a congressional command prohibiting such waivers. (Horton II, supra, 737 F.3d at pp. 360–361.)

The news was not all good for arbitration, however.

The Court maintained its rule in Sonic-Calabasas A, Inc. v. Moreno (2013) 57 Cal.4th 1109 (Sonic II)," such that courts may find arbitration agreements unconscionable if they do not provide protections similar to the wage claim statute.   That means the court is leaving open the door to invalidation of arbitration agreements under state law for a variety of reasons that courts have come up with over the years.  Only the U.S. Supreme Court will be able to fix this ongoing situation, if the Court is so inclined.

The Court also held that employers may not require waiver of "representative" actions in arbitration.  Therefore, employees who cannot maintain class actions in arbitration can pursue claims under the Private Attorney General Act, or PAGA.

What is a PAGA representative action?  The Court explained, quoting from a prior decision:

An employee plaintiff suing . . . under the [PAGA] does so as the proxy or agent of the state’s labor law enforcement agencies. . . . In a lawsuit brought under the act, the employee plaintiff represents the same legal right and interest as state labor law enforcement agencies — namely, recovery of civil penalties that otherwise would have been assessed and collected by the Labor Workforce Development Agency. [Citations.] . . . . Because collateral estoppel applies not only against a party to the prior action in which the issue was determined, but also against those for whom the party acted as an agent or proxy [citations], a judgment in an employee’s action under the act binds not only that employee but also the state labor law enforcement agencies.

“Because an aggrieved employee’s action under the [PAGA] functions as a substitute for an action brought by the government itself, a judgment in that action binds all those, including nonparty aggrieved employees, who would be bound by a judgment in an action brought by the government. The act authorizes a representative action only for the purpose of seeking statutory penalties for Labor Code violations (Lab. Code, § 2699, subds. (a), (g)), and an action to recover civil penalties ‘is fundamentally a law enforcement action designed to protect the

Also, the plaintiff keeps just 25% of the penalties recovered, the rest go to the state.

Iskanian's arbitration agreement waived "representative" claims as well as class claims. Therefore, because he had to arbitrate all claims, and could not arbitrate representative claims at all, the question was whether the agreement was enforceable.

The Supreme Court said, "no."

a prohibition of representative claims frustrates the PAGA’s objectives. As one Court of Appeal has observed: “[A]ssuming it is authorized, a single-claimant arbitration under the PAGA for individual penalties will not result in the penalties contemplated under the PAGA to punish and deter employer practices that violate the rights of numerous employees under the Labor Code. That plaintiff and other employees might be able to bring individual claims for Labor Code violations in separate arbitrations does not serve the purpose of the PAGA, even if an individual claim has collateral estoppel effects. (Arias, supra, 46 Cal.4th at pp. 985–987.) Other employees would still have to assert their claims in individual proceedings.” (Brown v. Ralphs Grocery Co. (2011) 197 Cal.App.4th 489, 502, fn. omitted.)

The Court then addressed whether the Federal Arbitration Act would require the courts to allow waiver of representative claims.  Again, the California Supreme Court said "no."

We conclude that the rule against PAGA waivers does not frustrate the FAA’s objectives because, as explained below, the FAA aims to ensure an efficient forum for the resolution of private disputes, whereas a PAGA action is a dispute between an employer and the state Labor and Workforce Development Agency.

* * *

Simply put, a PAGA claim lies outside the FAA’s coverage because it is not a dispute between an employer and an employee arising out of their contractual relationship. It is a dispute between an employer and the state, which alleges directly or through its agents — either the Labor and Workforce Development Agency or aggrieved employees — that the employer has violated the Labor Code. Through his PAGA claim, Iskanian is seeking to recover civil penalties, 75 percent of which will go to the state’s coffers.

So, where does this leave us with respect to arbitration:

1.  Class action waivers are enforceable. Employers may implement valid arbitration agreements with class action waivers and foreclose employees from bringing class actions in court or arbitration.  That will change only if the U.S. Supreme Court overrules itself, or if Congress amends the FAA.  Given the ease with which courts are granting class certification, a properly managed and implemented arbitration program may be a wise decision for employers exposed to wage hour class actions.

2. Arbitration agreements cannot validly waive "representative" actions. Therefore employees proceeding under PAGA may pursue those Labor Code penalties  authorized by PAGA, whether in arbitration or court.  However, employees cannot use PAGA to bring claims for, damages, such as meal and break premiums, overtime,  etc.  Only penalties.  This may change if the U.S. Supreme Court takes up this case.

3.  Employers still must draft arbitration agreements to comply with the courts' notions of what is "unconscionable."  This case does nothing to affect the unconscionabilty jurisprudence that the California courts have developed. That means arbitration will be remain expensive, and employers will not be able to use arbitration agreements to unfairly limit claims, statutes of limitations, or remedies. This will not change unless the U.S. Supreme Court decides that the FAA overruled the California courts' unconscionability jurisprudence.

4.  The California Supreme Court's interpretation of the FAA and the NLRA provide a means for the U.S. Supreme Court to review this case, because of the federal laws involved.  Let's see if the high Court takes the opportunity to clarify when state law "unconscionability" or "public policy" doctrine  conflicts with the FAA.

U.S. Supreme Court Protects Public Sector Employee's First Amendment Rights

Central Alabama Community College hired Edward Lane to be Director of Community Intensive Training for Youth (CITY).  After learning CITY had budget problems, he audited the program’s expenses.  During the audit, Lane found out Schmitz, an Alabama state representative, was on the CITY payroll, but not working.  Lane pressed the issue, demanding Schmitz report to work.  She refused.  Lane fired Schmitz.

Schmitz took offense that Lane would try to save the tax payers some money by firing someone collecting a salary for not doing any work.   She allegedly told another employee she would seek retribution against Lane and that she would see to it that his agency would not receive favor from the legislature.  The FBI became involved, and Schmitz was later convicted of corruption charges.   Lane testified under oath before a grand jury and at trial, under subpoena.

Meanwhile, the CITY agency continued its budget woes.  Lane's boss, Franks, later laid off Lane and another probationary employee.  Lane sued Franks under 42 U.S.C. 1983 for violation of his civil rights (First Amendment right to testify without retaliation, among other things).  He sued Franks in his "official capacity" as a substitute for the state, and in his individual capacity.

But the lower courts held that Lane was not entitled to First Amendment protection because the testimony he haves were related to his official duties.  Precedents establish that when government employees speak within the course of their duties, the First Amendment provides minimal protection, because of the employer's interest in orderly operation of its work place. 

The U.S. Supreme Court accepted the case to determine if the First Amendment protects employees who provide testimony under oath on matters that concern the job site.  The Court unanimously held that it does, thereby giving Lane a retaliation claim against Franks in his "official capacity" as a representative of the state.  (Lane sought reinstatement and equitable relief against Franks in his official capacity).  

From the Court's unanimous opinion:

Truthful testimony under oath by a public employee outside the scope of his ordinary job duties is speech as a citizen for First Amendment purposes. That is so even when the testimony relates to his public employment or concerns information learned during that employment.

The Court also held:

The content of Lane’s testimony—corruption in a public program and misuse of state funds—obviously involves a matter of significant public concern.

The Court also held that the government did not have an adequate justification to tip the balance in its favor:

an employee’s sworn testimony is not categorically entitled to First Amendment protection simply because it is speech as a citizen on a matter of public concern. Under Pickering, if an employee speaks as a citizen on a matter of public concern, the next question is whether the government had “an adequate justification for treating the employee differently from any other member of the public” based on thegovernment’s needs as an employer. * * * 

Here, the employer’s side of the Pickering scale is entirely empty: Respondents do not assert, and cannot demonstrate, any government interest that tips the balance in their favor. There is no evidence, for example, that Lane’s testimony at Schmitz’ trials was false or erroneous or that Lane unnecessarily disclosed any sensitive, confidential,or privileged information while testifying . . . .  

So, Lane's case against the state could proceed via his suit against Franks in his "official capacity."  But the Court also held that the lawsuit against Franks personally would be barred by "qualified immunity.":

Qualified immunity “gives government officials breathing room to make reasonable but mistaken judgments about open legal questions.” Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 563 U. S. ___, ___ (2011) (slip op., at 12). Under this doctrine, courts may not award damages against a government official in his personal capacity unless “the official violated a statutory or constitutional right,” and “the right was ‘clearlyestablished’ at the time of the challenged conduct.” * * * 

The relevant question for qualified immunity purposes is this: Could Franks reasonably have believed, at the time he fired Lane, that a government employer could fire an employee on account of testimony the employee gave, under oath and outside the scope of his ordinary job responsibilities? Eleventh Circuit precedent did not preclude Franks from reasonably holding that belief. And no decision of this Court was sufficiently clear to cast doubt on the controlling Eleventh Circuit precedent. * * * *

So, Lane's official capacity case was returned to the lower courts.  Franks is off the hook personally.

This case is Lane v. Franks and the opinion is here.

Happy 8th Anniversary Shaw Valenza LLP

Shaw Valenza and this blog celebrate our 8th anniversary today. 8 years is a long flash in the pan.  We wouldn't be here if it wasn't for our great team, our fantastic clients, and our exclusive club of readers.  That's you.  So, thank you all!

Thank you, too, to the Legislature, agencies, and courts for keeping us busy.

Finally, thank you Jennifer Brown Shaw, the best employment lawyer, partner, and friend one could hope to have.

DGV 6/19/2014

Court of Appeal: Extortion Is Not a Legally Protected Pre-Litigation Demand

From the Court of Appeal's opinion:

Jerome Stenehjem sued his former employer, Akon, Inc., and Surya Sareen, Akon‘s president and chief executive officer, for defamation, among other causes of action. Sareen countersued for civil extortion. Sareen alleged in an amended cross-complaint (Cross-Complaint) that Stenehjem (1) had asserted, through his counsel, a prelitigation claim for defamation; and (2) had later, while representing himself, made a written threat by e-mail to file a false criminal complaint against Sareen unless he paid Stenehjem monies to settle his defamation claim. Stenehjem‘s e-mail demand mentioned a potential qui tam suit; alluded to accounting documents created by Stenehjem at Sareen‘s specific direction, and referred to potential involvement of the United States Attorney General, Department of Justice, and Department of Defense. Sareen alleged that Stenehjem‘s demand constituted extortion in violation of criminal laws.

Shorter:  Stenehjem is Akon's ex employee. Akon is the employer.  Sareen is Akon's CEO.  Stenehjem  claims wrongful discharge, defamation, etc.  His lawyer tries to demand over $600,000 in settlement. Akon, the former employer, repeatedly tells him to jump in the lake.

Then, Stenehjem discontinues his relationship with his lawyer and sends the following email to Akon's lawyer, McDonnell:

Dear Mr. McDonnell, [¶] Although you have been quite firm and I feel un-professional in your response to my request to discuss the matter of my wrongful termination and the defamation claim I know is valid face to face, I take your comments about this being a Bogus claim very personnelly [sic]. I at no time wanted to cause any un-neccessay [sic] or long court procedings [sic] to hinder Akon or Mr. Sareen from continuing to doing bussiness [sic] as usual. As Akon‘s attorney I leave it in your hands to get the facts from Mr. Sareen and Dick Sanders in regards to a contract review by the aduitor [sic] Wayne Vartek and the documents I created on orders from Mr. Sareen regarding BOM‘s and purchase orders for three DLVA‘s under contract aduit [sic]. Mr. Sareen went into great detail about the reasons and figures which he had me write down in my notebook required in the BOM documentation he asked me to provide. [¶] I never wanted this to become a long and expensive process let alone involve the United States Attorney General, the Department of Justice or the DOD. Other then [sic] the wrongful termination I have never held any ill feeling towards Akon or Mr. Sareen. I also never wanted to enrich a bunch of bottom feeding attorneys such as yourself and the ones I have been meeting with. With that said I advise you to forward this to Mr. Sareen, act in good faith as his attorney and decide if this is the manner in which you want to continue responding in [sic]. [¶] In closing please inform your client I do not wish to make a Federal case out of this or create any unneccessary [sic] stress on Mr. Sareen or any Akon employees. Please remind Mr. Sareen of his statement that ―when I am wrong I will be the first to admit it and appoligize [sic.]‖ [I]t is still my desire to resolve this matter face to face and with no involvement of the courts and a bunch of attorneys serving there [sic] own self interests. [¶] I am extending my hand and this offer to meet one last time because of my disgust with the idea of enriching a large group of bottom feeding attorneys such as you and the ones advising me. It is not my first choice to procede [sic] with the Qui Tam option but the choice of a group of attorneys looking for the biggest payout they can get with the least effort and expense. I have yet to sign an agreement with the Lawyer out of Los Angeles who specializes in Qui Tam suits but he has reviewed my statement, investigated the facts, talked to former Akon employees, and wants to fly up to sign an agreement and formalize my statement. [¶] I was always honest with Mr. Sareen[;] hence my disclosure of the pending actions and my extension of one last opportunity to settle this in a gentlemens [sic] manner, shake hands and put this matter behind us. If you are acting [sic] in his best interests you will forward this letter to Mr. Sareen and respond in a civil and professional manner and not in the manner which you so un-professionally replied previously. [¶] Sincerely, Jerry Stenehjem‖

(emphasis mine)

In essence, Stenehjem attempted to gain advantage in his own civil suit by threatening Akon with a "qui tam" or false claims suit, the involvement o the government, etc., unless Akon settled with Stehehjem.

Akon, bless 'em, then sued Stenehjem for extortion.  Actually, Akon filed a cross-complaint to Stenehjem's complaint for defamation etc.  In response to the cross-complaint, Stenehjem filed a motion to strike that extortion claim as a "SLAPP" or "Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation."

The trial court granted the motion to strike, deciding that Stenehjem's email was protected pre-litigation speech.  But the Court of Appeal reversed the trial court.  It held that Akon's lawsuit would go forward against Stenehjem because his e-mail was indeed extortion.  Extortion is not protected speech.

It is important to consider the context under which the e-mail was sent. This backdrop included Stenehjem‘s initial settlement demand through counsel of $675,000; McDonnell‘s repeated statements that Stenehjem‘s claims had no merit; and McDonnell‘s having previously rebuffed any idea of settling the claims. McDonnell: (1) advised Stenehjem‘s attorney, Heymann, six months earlier that the claims were ―meritless‖ and that the only way Stenehjem would receive any monetary payment was by obtaining a judgment against Defendants; (2) told Heymann, in response to the latter‘s overtures regarding mediation of the dispute, that Akon would not mediate the matter and would not ―waste any more time on pointless settlement discussions‖; and (3) responded to Stenehjem‘s personal e-mail of June 23, 2011, in which Stenehjem had sought ―to settlethis matter by direct negotiation,‖ by stating that ―AKON is not interested in spending any time on any further settlement discussions of your bogus claims.‖13 Stenehjem in his August e-mail is therefore characterizing as unprofessional McDonnell‘s consistent position that Stenehjem‘s claims were unmeritorious and that his clients would pay no money to settle them.

*  *  *

We conclude that Stenehjem‘s August e-mail constituted extortion as a matter of law. It threatened to expose Sareen to federal authorities for alleged violations of the False Claims Act unless he negotiated a settlement of Stenehjem‘s private claims. Even were it true that Sareen had in fact committed acts violating the False Claims Act—and there is no evidence to support this, since Stenehjem filed no declarations in connection with the motion other than his attorney‘s fee declaration—this is ―irrelevant‖ to whether the threatened disclosure was extortion. (Flatley, supra, 39 Cal.4th at p. 330.) And it is of no consequence that the e-mail did not specifically identify the crime of which Stenehjem intended to accuse Sareen. (Flatley, at p. 331; Mendoza, supra, 215 Cal.App.4th at p. 806.)

* * *  

Furthermore, the alleged criminal activity that Stenehjem threatened to expose in a qui tam action was ―entirely unrelated to any alleged injury suffered by‖ Stenehjem as alleged in his defamation and wrongful termination claims. (Flatley, supra, 39 Cal.4th at pp. 330-331.)

Bottom line -  plaintiffs, you cannot attempt to leverage your own weak cases by threatening to expand claims to unrelated matters.  If you do, that could be extortion, for which you could be held liable.  I hope a few of my adversaries read this.  I've heard threats like this during my own lawsuits.

This case is Stenehjem v. Sareen 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.