As promised, a longer article on California's New EEO Policy Requirement

I posted a couple of weeks ago (here) about the California Fair Employment and Housing Commissions new EEO regulations (here), which include specific requirements for anti-discrimination and harassment policies.  I promised to post our longer article for you.  Here it is. 

Of course, drafting a new policy is one thing, but putting in place the mechanisms for conducting investigations, having effective complaint procedures, etc. are something else.  Please work with your HR consultants, employment counsel, PEOs, etc. to get these requirements in place before too long.  The new regulations go into effect on April 1, 2016.

The legislature, agencies and courts are keeping us all busy.  I know it's a challenge for me to stay current.  It's probably tough for you too. My blog posts are less frequent than I would like as of late. But our Firm publishes a bi-weekly article on a current employment law issue, which you can find on our website or subscribe to via our *free* newsletter (Just sayin').

California Fair Employment and Housing Council Regulations Effective April 1, 2016 Require Employers to Change EEO Policies Now

The California Fair Employment and Housing Council is issuing revised regulations regarding discrimination, harassment and the like under the Fair Employment and Housing Act.  Shaw Valenza will be publishing a more detailed article in the next couple of weeks, which I'll post here.

The full text of the revised regulations, with redline and strikeout to show the changes is here. 

Some of the changes will not affect how employers do business, but will affect liability in litigation if courts adopt the Council's view.  But there are several new provisions that employers will have to deal with by amending policies and procedures.

The most urgent issue for employers to deal with - right now - is the Council's new, specific requirements for anti-harassment, discrimination and retaliation policies:   Employers already have a duty to distribute a DFEH brochure or alternative document that complies with Govt Code section 12950. But now, the Council requires much more. This is from section 11023(b) of the new regulations:

In addition to distributing the Department’s DFEH-185 brochure on sexual harassment, or an alternative writing that complies with Government Code section 12950, an employer shall develop a harassment, discrimination, and retaliation prevention policy that: 

(1) Is in writing; 

(2) Lists all current protected categories covered under the Act; 

(3) Indicates that the law prohibits coworkers and third parties, as well as supervisors and
managers, with whom the employee comes into contact from engaging in conduct prohibited by the Act; 

(4) Creates a complaint process to ensure that complaints receive:

(A) An employer’s designation of confidentiality, to the extent possible;(B) A timely response; (C) Impartial and timely investigations by qualified personnel; (D) Documentation and tracking for reasonable progress; (E) Appropriate options for remedial actions and resolutions; and (F) Timely closures.

(5) Provides a complaint mechanism that does not require an employee to complain directly to his or her immediate supervisor, including, but not limited to, the following:

(A) Direct communication, either orally or in writing, with a designated company representative, such as a human resources manager, EEO officer, or other supervisor; and/or

(B) A complaint hotline; and/or

(C) Access to an ombudsperson; and/or

(D) Identification of the Department and the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) as additional avenues for employees to lodge complaints.

(6) Instructs supervisors to report any complaints of misconduct to a designated company representative, such as a human resources manager, so the company can try to resolve the claim internally. Employers with 50 or more employees are required to include this as a topic in mandated sexual harassment prevention training, pursuant to section 11024 of these regulations.  

(7) Indicates that when an employer receives allegations of misconduct, it will conduct a fair, timely, and thorough investigation that provides all parties appropriate due process and reaches reasonable conclusions based on the evidence collected.

(8) States that confidentiality will be kept by the employer to the extent possible, but not indicate that the investigation will be completely confidential 

(9) Indicates that if at the end of the investigation misconduct is found, appropriate remedial measures shall be taken. 

(10) Makes clear that employees shall not be exposed to retaliation as a result of lodging a complaint or participating in any workplace investigation.

These are all good ideas for employers to follow. But these now must be included in a written policy disseminated to all employees.  

The new regulations also explain how the policy must be disseminated:

Dissemination of the policy shall include one or more of the following methods:

(1) Printing and providing a copy to all employees with an acknowledgment form for the employee to sign and return;

(2) Sending the policy via e-mail with an acknowledgment return form;

(3) Posting current versions of the policies on a company intranet with a tracking system
ensuring all employees have read and acknowledged receipt of the policies;

 (4) Discussing policies upon hire and/or during a new hire orientation session; and/or (5) Any other way that ensures employees receive and understand the policies.

(d) Any employer whose workforce at any facility or establishment contains 10 percent or more of persons who speak a language other than English as their spoken language shall translate the policy into every language that is spoken by at least 10 percent of the workforce.

So, multi-state employers, no more "or any other characteristic protected by state law" in your policies. Please review EEO policies and revise them ASAP.  

It is also critical to ensure there are systems in place for addressing complaints should they arise that are consistent with the policy - such as translation if needed, dissemination of the policy and record keeping, investigations, complaint procedures, etc.

California Fair Employment and Housing Council Considering Regulations Limiting Consideration of Criminal History

The California Fair Employment and Housing Council has taken the first step to issue regulations that would limit employers' consideration of criminal history.  The proposed regulations expressly incorporate a number of existing laws.  They also explain how "disparate impact" standards will be applied to employer practices regarding criminal records.

Some highlights:

- The regulations expressly incorporate bans on consideration of arrest records that already appear in the Labor Code;
- No consideration of any conviction referred to a pre-trial or post-trial diversion program;

- No consideration of expunged, judicially dismissed, or statutorily eradicated convictions;

- Employers may not take action based on "non-felony" marijuana possession convictions more than two years old.  Unhelpfully, they don't say how the two years is measured (neither does the Labor Code section upon which this provision is based).

- The regulations explain that public sector employers may not consider convictions until after the employer determines the applicant meets minimum qualifications for the job.  This is so-called 'ban the box," meaning that public sector applications cannot ask for conviction information. This provision does not affect private sector applications.

- Local ordinances containing tougher proscriptions (such as San Francisco's) are preserved.

- Employers must ensure consideration of convictions do not impose an "adverse impact" on minorities or others protected by anti-discrimination laws.  However, employers may establish that the consideration of a previous conviction is "job-related and consistent with business necessity."  What does that mean?

The criminal conviction consideration policy or practice needs to bear a demonstrable relationship to successful performance on the job and in the workplace and measure the person’s fitness for the specific job, not merely to evaluate the person in the abstract. In order to establish job-relatedness and business necessity, any employer must demonstrate that the policy or practice is appropriately tailored, taking into account at least the following factors:
(A) The nature and gravity of the offense or conduct;
(B) The time that has passed since the offense or conduct and/or completion of the sentence; and
(C) The nature of the job held or sought.

- Employers have to show that bright-line disqualifications distinguish between applicants and employees that do or do not pose an unacceptable level of risk.  That means there has to be a way to conduct an individual assessment of the applicant notwithstanding the crime.

- Employers that consider convictions older the seven years are subject to a rebuttable presumption that the practice is NOT job-related.

- Employers must give employees a chance to explain a conviction is inaccurate.

- Even if the employer demonstrates its conviction policy is job-related and consistent with business necessity, the applicant can show there are less discriminatory alternatives, "such as a more narrowly targeted list of convictions or another form of inquiry that evaluates job qualification or risk as accurately without significantly increasing the cost or burden on the employer."

- The proposed regulation does not apply when laws require elimination of applicants who are convicted of certain crimes.

The FEHC will be vetting the proposed regulations via a notice and comment period. There will likely be revisions as well. But it appears that California employers will have to conform their policies and practices regarding convictions to new rules in the months to come.  We will keep you posted.

The Council has published more information about the comment period and proposed regulations here. 

CA Governor Signs New Equal Pay Law

The California Legislature has turned its attention to anti-discrimination law: equal pay.  Now, who is against equal pay?  If you raised your hand, you violated at least four laws that already existed before Jerry Brown signed SB 358 (text is here).  Four laws?   At least.

1. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 does not allow employers to set pay based on sex (or race or other protected criteria). So, if a restaurant employer paid female servers  $0.50 per hour less than male servers, that would violate Title VII absent a "legitimate, nondiscriminatory business reason."  The workers must be "similarly situated."

2. The California Fair Employment and Housing Act is analogous to Title VII.

3.  The federal Equal Pay Act of 1963 (here)  (yes, enacted a year earlier than Title VII) provides:

(1) No employer having employees subject to any provisions of this section shall discriminate, within any establishment in which such employees are employed, between employees on the basis of sex by paying wages to employees in such establishment at a rate less than the rate at which he pays wages to employees of the opposite sex in such establishment for equal work on jobs the performance of which requires equal skill, effort, and responsibility, and which are performed under similar working conditions, except where such payment is made pursuant to (i) a seniority system; (ii) a merit system; (iii) a system which measures earnings by quantity or quality of production; or (iv) a differential based on any other factor other than sex: Provided, That an employer who is paying a wage rate differential in violation of this subsection shall not, in order to comply with the provisions of this subsection, reduce the wage rate of any employee.

4. And the California Labor Code, section 1197.5  already says:

1197.5. (a) No employer shall pay any individual in the employer's employ at wage rates less than the rates paid to employees of the opposite sex in the same establishment for equal work on jobs the performance of which requires equal skill, effort, and responsibility, and which are performed under similar working conditions, except where the payment is made pursuant to a seniority system, a merit system, a system which measures earnings by quantity or quality of production, or a differential based on any bona fide factor other than sex.

That said, and dissatisfied with the "wage gap" that exists between the wages earned by all men and all women in all jobs (which has nothing to do with the equal pay laws), the Legislature has  modified section 1197.5, intending to strengthen it.

Here is the text of the new law's equal pay provisions:

1197.5. (a) An employer shall not pay any of its employees at wage rates less than the rates paid to employees of the opposite sex for substantially similar work, when viewed as a composite of skill, effort, and responsibility, and performed under similar working conditions, except where the employer demonstrates: 

(1) The wage differential is based upon one or more of the following factors:
  (A) A seniority system.
  (B) A merit system.
  (C) A system that measures earnings by quantity or quality of production.
  (D) A bona fide factor other than sex, such as education, training, or experience. This factor shall apply only if the employer demonstrates that the factor is not based on or derived from a sex-based differential in compensation, is job related with respect to the position in question, and is consistent with a business necessity. For purposes of this subparagraph, “business necessity” means an overriding legitimate business purpose such that the factor relied upon effectively fulfills the business purpose it is supposed to serve. This defense shall not apply if the employee demonstrates that an alternative business practice exists that would serve the same business purpose without producing the wage differential.
(2) Each factor relied upon is applied reasonably.
(3) The one or more factors relied upon account for the entire wage differential.

The key changes are:

- "substantially similar" work rather than equal work.  What does "views as a composite of skill, effort, and responsibility" mean?  This will be the subject of litigation. 

- the employee need not compare herself to others only within the same location, but may look to other job sites.  This change likely expands the new law beyond all four laws discussed above. When employers have multiple facilities and pay different rates based on location, this section could result in claims of pay disparity.  It is still lawful to do pay geographic differentials as far as I know. But employers will have to ensure that wage differentials based on geography are applied equally and do not create sex-based disparities.

-  the employer has to prove that wage disparities based on factors "other than sex, such as education, training or experience" are job-related, consistent with business necessity, and that the employee cannot prove a less discriminatory alternative.

- the court / jury gets to decide if the employer's reason for wage disparities are "reasonable."  

- the employer must prove the entire wage disparity is due to one or more of the defenses.

Other major changes:

 - Recordkeeping under this section goes from 2 years to 3.

-  It is already the law (in the Labor Code, even) that an employer cannot prohibit an employee from disclosing her own wages or discussing wages at work.  But this new law prohibits employers from preventing employees from "inquiring about another employee's wages" or "aiding or encouraging any other employee to exercise his or her rights under this section."  However, the new law says that it does not require anyone, including the employer, to disclose others' wages.  There is no exception for payroll or HR workers who may "discuss the wages of others" under this new law.  So, can the payroll manager chat with Sally about Bob's pay?  It also will be interesting to see if this law is preempted by the National Labor Relations Act, which also covers this area. 

- New private rights of action and remedies for violations. However, these existed in one form or another under the old laws as well.

Effective date and final thoughts:

This law takes effect on January 1, 2016.

Employers will have to revise payroll and confidentiality policies before then. It will also serve employers well do analyze compensation systems to ensure that wage disparities are justified in accordance with the defenses stated above.

Oh, and this law will do little to nothing to address the "wage gap" that you may have read about, or heard Patricia Arquette discuss at the Oscars.  That wage gap is a function of the average wage paid to women for all jobs compared with the average wage paid to men.   It's not a comparison of men and women doing the same job for the same employer.

If the politicians want to pass a law to address the overall wage gap and stop using it as a political talking point, they can do so.  But they will have to pass a law that sets wages for male-dominated occupations lower, set wages for female-dominated occupations higher,  and/or somehow balance the mix of males and females in each job category.  I have to go now.  I have an appointment in Room 101.

Finally finally, I think the law actually has a typo in it.  The usual way one refers to the commencement of the statute of limitations is when the cause of action "accrues."   This law reads, at least on the internet, and as of right now:

A civil action to recover wages under subdivision (a) may be commenced no later than two years after the cause of action occurs.

(emphasis mine).  I make typos too.  But I don't pass landmark legislation that affects millions of Californians.

California Governor Signs Bill Making Request for Reasonable Accommodation Grounds for Retaliation Claim Under FEHA

The Courts of Appeal have held that an employee's requesting reasonable accommodation is not a "protected activity" for which a retaliation claim will lie under the Fair Employment and Housing Act. (See, for example, Rope v. Auto-Chlor, discussed here).  That is because protected activity was (previously) defined as "opposing" some unlawful practice, or participation in an investigation or proceeding involving FEHA-based claims.  A request for accommodation is not "opposing" an unlawful practice, so it did not fall within the previous definition.

Not to worry. The Legislature just added to the list of protected activities an employee's request for accommodation, whether or not it is granted.  So, when an employer denies reasonable accommodation, that was and is separately actionable. Now, the employee likely will assert a retaliation claim as well, claiming that the denial was in retaliation for the employee's making the request.  

May the employer lawfully deny an accommodation because it's not "reasonable" or because the employee is not a "qualified individual," but still be liable for retaliation? We'll see how the courts react.

The new law is AB 987, text here.

Court of Appeal: Claimed Inability to Work With Particular Supervisor Need Not Be Accommodated

An employee clashes with her manager, takes a medical leave of absence for "stress," receives repeated extensions, and her doctor says she can come back to work, but only under a new manager.  Heard that one before?   That's what Higgins-Williams v. Sutter Medical Foundation is about.

The plaintiff-employee took CFRA/FMLA leave initially. Then she exhausted it and returned to work. Her manager immediately gave her a negative evaluation. The regional manager, Perry, began to single plaintiff out for negative treatment, such as being curt with plaintiff while being friendly with others. Then plaintiff's boss accused the plaintiff of being irresponsible with her badge and Perry allegedly grabbed her arm.  The plaintiff had a "panic attack," and did not return to work again.

Sutter granted a series of extended absences as temporary accommodations.  Plaintiff's doctor continued to insist that she could return to work under a new supervisor and perform her duties without restriction.  The doctor then certified that plaintiff could return to work in her original department, but on light duty.  The doctor would not commit to a return to work date when the plaintiff could perform her essential functions with or without an accommodation (that did not include a new supervisor).

Sutter then drew the line:

On January 24, 2011, Sutter informed plaintiff (1) that Dr. Chen had stated on January 6, 2011, that plaintiff could not return to work then, but that plaintiff wanted to return on March 1, 2011, on light duty in the Connecting to Work Program; (2) that Dr. Chen did not provide any information as to if or when plaintiff would be able to return to her clinical assistant position; (3) that there was no information to support a conclusion that additional leave as an accommodation would effectuate plaintiff‟s return as a clinical assistant; and (4) that if plaintiff did not provide such information by January 31, 2011, her employment would be terminated February 1, 2011.

Plaintiff and her doctor apparently did not get the gist of this communication.

On January 28, 2011, Dr. Chen informed Sutter that plaintiff was not medically cleared to return to work at that point, and that plaintiff would continue her regimen of psychotherapy and medications. In her deposition, plaintiff testified she did not feel she could have returned to work in the Shared Services Department with regional manager Perry or supervisor Prince on February 1, 2011. Plaintiff also testified at her deposition
that at the time of her termination, she "was willing to try‟ to return to work on March 1, 2011, in the Shared Services Department under manager Perry.

Sutter then terminated the plaintiff's employment on February 1, 2011.

So, the plaintiff sued for disability discrimination, retaliation, failure to prevent, and denial of accommodation under the Fair Employment and Housing Act.  The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's grant of summary judgment.

The basis for the Court of Appeal's decision is significant.  The Court reaffirmed previous case law in which the court held that inability to work for a particular supervisor is not a covered disability:

An employee's inability to work under a particular supervisor because of anxiety and stress related to the supervisor‟s standard oversight of the employee‟s job performance does not constitute a disability under FEHA. (Hobson v. Raychem Corp. (1999) 73 Cal.App.4th 614, 628 (Hobson) [“the inability to perform one particular job, or to work under a particular supervisor, does not constitute a qualified disability” under FEHA (italics added)]; see Weiler v. Household Finance Corp. (7th Cir. 1996) 101 F.3d 519, 522, 524-525 [both Hobson and Weiler apply the narrower federal test of disability of “substantially limits” a major life activity, rather than the broader California test of simply “limits”; Hobson was disapproved on this point in Colmenares v. Braemar Country Club, Inc. (2003) 29 Cal.4th 1019, 1031, fn. 6] (Colmenares).)

As stated above, the Court of Appeal acknowledged that the Hobson decision applied a less employee-friendly definition of disability. But the Court then held that even under the current formulation, inability to work for the current supervisor is not a disability, because it does not "limit" the major life activity of working.

The Court then held that because the plaintiff did not have a disability, she could not succeed under her claims for common law wrongful termination, denial of accommodation or failure to engage in the interactive process.

Of note, the Court of Appeal remanded the case to the trial court regarding its award of costs to Sutter.  Costs no longer are awarded to prevailing defendants as a matter of right in FEHA cases, following the California Supreme Court's decision in Williams v. Chino Valley Independent Fire Dist. (2015) 61 Cal.4th 97 (discussed here). 

This case is Higgins-Williams v. Sutter Med. Foundation, and the opinion is here.

California Supreme Court: Winning Employers in Discrimination Lawsuits Lose Automatic Right to Recover Costs of Suit

The general rule is that a winning litigant is entitled to recover costs of suit. These can include deposition transcripts, filing fees, witness fees, subpoena fees, and more.  I know this because it says so right here in Civil Procedure Code section 1032:

(b) Except as otherwise expressly provided by statute, a prevailing party is entitled as a matter of right to recover costs in any action or proceeding.

But attorney's fees are not considered costs and are not recoverable unless a statute so provides.

The Fair Employment and Housing Act contains a provision in Govt Code section 12965(b) allowing prevailing parties to recover attorney's fees and costs:

In civil actions brought under this section, the court, in its discretion, may award to the prevailing party, including the department, reasonable attorney's fees and costs, including expert witness fees.

The courts have long interpreted this section to say that employees normally are entitled to attorney's fees if they win their lawsuit. But, employers do not recover attorney's fees unless the plaintiff's case was frivolous, groundless, or without foundation.  I know, the statute does not make that distinction. But that's been the rule since the 1970's, at least under federal law.  California courts have followed this rule for many years.  The theory is that allowing employer-defendants to recover attorney's fees in all cases would dissuade people from suing for discrimination, harassment and retaliation.

But what of litigation costs?  Does Govt Code section 12965(b), quoted above, "expressly provide"  for an exception to the general rule set forth in Civil Proc. Code section 1032? 

Yes.  Yes it does.  That's what the California Supreme Court unanimously held in Williams v. Chino Valley Ind. Fire Dist., opinion here.  In a nutshell, the Court held:

We conclude Government Code section 12965, subdivision (b), governs cost awards in FEHA actions, allowing trial courts discretion in awards of both attorney fees and costs to prevailing FEHA parties. We further conclude that in awarding attorney fees and costs, the trial court‘s discretion is bounded by the rule of Christiansburg; an unsuccessful FEHA plaintiff should not be ordered to pay the defendant‘s fees or costs unless the plaintiff brought or continued litigating the action without an objective basis for believing it had potential merit. 

Many cases do not go to trial or get resolved via motion for summary judgment.  Therefore, there are only a small percentage of cases in which the defendant is entitled to recover its "costs." 

But this case has wider implications.  The potential for an award of costs is an incentive to plaintiffs to settle weak cases.  This holding guts that incentive.  Courts now must apply the same standard to costs as they do to attorney's fees.  It's not easy to persuade a court to award attorney's fees.  Plaintiffs and their lawyers will take into account that the employer will have a tough time obtaining an award of costs. Therefore, they may hold out for larger settlements or refuse to settle altogether. 

This case also makes it less likely that a weak case will be dismissed for a waiver of costs, which is a way for a plaintiff to settle a bad case.  The offer of a waiver of costs can have real consequences if costs are recoverable as a matter of right. For example, if an employer wins summary judgment, it may offer to settle for a waiver of costs if the plaintiff forgoes appeal. Now, that offer is less valuable. 

Finally, this case will make it more burdensome and expensive for defendants who prevail and then seek costs. It also will cause new burdens for trial courts.  Defendants no longer will be able to file a simple memorandum of costs at the end of a case.  Instead, they will have to file a motion to convince the court that the plaintiff's case was frivolous, unreasonable or without foundation.  Presumably, that motion will have to be based on evidence, such as deposition transcripts.  Those motions cost money to prepare, creating a further disincentive to filing them.  The trial court will then have to take the time to review these motions and make rulings. And then the courts of appeal may have to review the orders on appeal.

This ruling is great for plaintiffs with weak cases.  But not so great for employers facing huge defense costs that wish to pay a settlement rather than risk losing at trial or incurring further legal bills.

Again, the opinion in Williams v. Chino Valley Ind. Fire Dist. is here.  

Have a nice day!

  

Court of Appeal: No Duty to Remove Essential Job Functions as Reasonable Accommodation and More...

The Court of Appeal in Nealy v. City of Santa Monica upheld summary judgment in a disability discrimination case.  The case involved an injured "solid waste equipment operator," which may mean garbage truck operator.  Nealy injured his right knee lifting a large bin, leading to several surgeries.

In a nutshell, the City allowed Nealy a long leave of absence. They met with him several times. His doctors placed many physical restrictions on him, precluding him from the heavy lifting required of the solid waste equipment operator.   Nealy asked for accommodations, including removing lifting requirements and allowing Nealy to work on one particular type of truck. The City took the position it was not required to remove essential job functions.  The City also looked into transfers. But  Nealy apparently was not qualified for the open, available jobs.

Nealy sued for disparate treatment, denial of reasonable accommodation, and failure to engage in the interactive process. He also sued for retaliation.  The Court of Appeal upheld summary judgment on several grounds.  The explanation of the law on each claim is clear and will help employers understand the legal issues. So, here goes:

Reasonable accommodation

The elements of a reasonable accommodation cause of action are (1) the employee suffered a disability, (2) the employee could perform the essential functions of the job with reasonable accommodation, and (3) the employer failed to reasonably accommodate the employee’s disability. (Wilson v. County of Orange (2009) 169 Cal.App.4th 1185, 1192; Nadaf-Rahrov, supra, at p. 977.)  * * *  The fact that one essential function may be up for debate does not preclude summary judgment if the employee cannot perform other essential functions even with accommodation.

In this case, there was copious evidence that Nealy could not perform one or more of the job's essential functions. The Court rejected his arguments about accommodations via removal of essential functions. 

FEHA does not obligate the employer to accommodate the employee by excusing him or her from the performance of essential functions. (Lui v. City and County of San Francisco (2012) 211 Cal.App.4th 962, 985.) There is no dispute heavy lifting was an essential function of the solid waste equipment operator—even for those who operated the automated side loader. 

The Court then turned to reassignment as a form of accommodation.  Here's the legal standard:

FEHA requires the employer to offer the employee “comparable” or “lower graded” vacant positions for which he or she is qualified. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 2, § 11068, subd. (d)(1), (2).) FEHA does not require a reassignment, however, if there is no vacant position for which the employee is qualified. (Cuiellette v. City of Los Angeles (2011) 194 Cal.App.4th 757, 767.) Additionally, FEHA does not require the employer to promote the employee or create a new position for the employee to a greater extent than it would create a new position for any employee, regardless of disability. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 2, § 11068, subd. (d)(4); Spitzer, supra, 80 Cal.App.4th at p. 1389.)  * * * 

In cases when courts have found a triable issue on reassignment, the employees have adduced evidence obtained through discovery that vacant positions for which they were qualified existed during the relevant period, but the employer failed to offer the positions to them. (Nadaf-Rahrov, supra, 166 Cal.App.4th at p. 968; Spitzer, supra, 80 Cal.App.4th at p. 1390.) Nealy has not adduced any such evidence here to dispute the City’s evidence that no other vacant positions for which he was qualified existed during the relevant period in 2010. Under FEHA, the City was thus relieved of its duty to reassign Nealy. (Spitzer, supra, 80 Cal.App.4th at p. 1389.)  * * * 

 In short, an employer can prevail on summary judgment on a claim of failure to reasonably accommodate by establishing through undisputed facts that “there simply was no vacant position within the employer’s organization for which the disabled employee was qualified and which the disabled employee was capable of performing with or without accommodation . . . .”

Disparate treatment

The Court also held that because Nealy was not a "qualified individual," he could not prevail on a disability discrimination claim.

The showing required is identical to that required for a cause of action for failure to reasonably accommodate. That is, a qualified individual is someone who is able to perform the essential functions of his or her job, with or without reasonable accommodation. (Id. at p. 262.) FEHA permitted the City to discharge Nealy if he was unable to perform the essential functions of his job even with reasonable accommodations. (Gov. Code, § 12940, subd. (a)(1) [“This part does not prohibit an employer from . . . discharging an employee with a physical or mental disability . . . where the employee, because of his or her physical or mental disability, is unable to perform his or her essential duties even with reasonable accommodations . . . .”]; Green v. State of California, supra, at p. 262.) 

Interactive Process

To prevail on a claim for failure to engage in the interactive process, the employee must identify a reasonable accommodation that would have been available at the time the interactive process occurred. (Scotch v. Art Institute of California (2009) 173 Cal.App.4th 986, 1018 (Scotch); Nadaf-Rahrov, supra, at p. 984.) “An employee cannot necessarily be expected to identify and request all possible accommodations during the interactive process itself because ‘“‘[e]mployees do not have at their disposal the extensive information concerning possible alternative positions or possible accommodations which employers have . . . .’”’” (Scotch, supra, at p. 1018.) But the employee should be able to identify specific, available reasonable accommodations through the litigation process, and particularly by the time the parties have conducted discovery and reached the summary judgment stage. (Id. at p. 1019.) * * * *

The only accommodations Nealy argues should have been available are (1) restructuring his old job so that he did not lift heavy objects or kneel; (2) assigning him to the automated side loader permanently; (3) reassigning him to another position; and (4) retraining. As we concluded above, the first two were not reasonable accommodations allowing him to perform the essential functions of the job, and the third was not reasonable because there were no vacant positions for which he was qualified. The fourth—retraining—does not assist Nealy. He provides absolutely no detail as to what type of retraining would have enabled him to perform the solid waste equipment operator job or some other vacant position. The bare assertion that the City should have provided retraining does not create a triable issue of fact. 

Retaliation

Nealy also lost on his retaliation claim.  The Court of Appeal made clear that he had not "engaged in a protected activity" merely by asking for a reasonable accommodation. The Court listed what counts as protected activity under the statute.

FEHA makes it unlawful for the employer to discharge or discriminate against an employee because he or she has “opposed any practices forbidden under this part or because the person has filed a complaint, testified, or assisted in any proceeding under this part.” (Gov. Code, § 12940, subd. (h).) Thus, protected activity takes the form of opposing any practices forbidden by FEHA or participating in any proceeding conducted by the DFEH or the State Fair Employment and Housing Council (FEHC). (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 2, §§ 11002, subds. (a), (b), 11021, subd. (a).) 

Opposing practices forbidden by FEHA includes seeking the advice of the DFEH or FEHC; assisting or advising any person in seeking the advice of the DFEH or FEHC; opposing employment practices the employee reasonably believes to exist and believes to be a violation of FEHA; participating in an activity perceived by the employer as opposition to discrimination; or contacting, communicating with, or participating in the proceeding of a local human rights or civil rights agency regarding employment discrimination.  * * * * 

 And then the Court emphasized:

Nealy does not identify any activity that qualifies as protected activity. He contends his protected activity was seeking the City’s assistance to return to work—that is, seeking reasonable accommodation—and initiating the interactive process. These acts alone do not amount to “oppos[ing] any practices forbidden under” FEHA or participating in DFEH or FEHC proceedings. (Gov. Code, § 12940, subd. (h); Rope, supra, 220 Cal.App.4th at p. 652.) If they did, this interpretation of protected activity “‘would significantly blur and perhaps obliterate the distinction between an action for failure to accommodate or engage in the interactive process and retaliation.’” (Rope, supra, at p. 653.) 

* * * *

This case is Nealy v. City of Santa Monica and the opinion is here.


 

Ninth Circuit: Summary Judgment in Employment Discrimination Cases Should Not Happen Much

The Ninth Circuit reversed summary judgment in a disability discrimination case alleged under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act.  We can't even say what the facts are, because the court does not recite them.

What we do know is:

To establish that he was terminated by Sears because of his disability, Nigro submitted a declaration stating that on June 29, 2009, he had a phone conversation with Larry Foerster, General Manager of the Sears Carlsbad store at which Nigro worked, and Foerster told him that “[i]f you're going to stick with being sick, it's not helping your situation. It is what it is. You're not getting paid, and you're not going to be accommodated.” Nigro also testified in his deposition that Sears's District Facilities Manager Alan Kamisugu told him not to be concerned about his pay issue because Chris Adams, Sears's District General Manager, had indicated to Kamisugu that Nigro was “not going to be here anymore.” The district court disregarded the evidence proffered by Nigro, on the basis that “the source of this evidence is Nigro's own self-serving testimony.”
* * * *
Nigro's direct supervisor Jason Foss also testified that Chris Adams said to him—referring to Nigro—that “I'm done with that guy .” 

What's so unusual about this case, warranting the court to publish the opinion?  Maybe it's because the district court found that Nigro's declaration could be disregarded as "self-serving."  The court explained that is not a basis to ignore the plaintiff's declaration:

We have previously acknowledged that declarations are often self-serving, and this is properly so because the party submitting it would use the declaration to support his or her position. S.E.C. v. Phan, 500 F.3d 895, 909 (9th Cir.2007) (holding that district court erred in disregarding declarations as “uncorroborated and self-serving”). The source of the evidence may have some bearing on its credibility, and thus on the weight it may be given by a trier of fact. But that evidence is to a degree self-serving is not a basis for the district court to disregard the evidence at the summary judgment stage. See 10A Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice & Procedure § 2727 (3d ed. 2011) (“[F]acts asserted by the party opposing the [summary judgment] motion, if supported by affidavits or other evidentiary material, are regarded as true.”). Here, Nigro's declaration and deposition testimony, albeit uncorroborated and self-serving, were sufficient to establish a genuine dispute of material fact on Sears's discriminatory animus. We conclude that the district court erred in disregarding Nigro's testimony in granting Sears's motion for summary judgment. 

The Court also reversed summary judgment on the plaintiff's claims for denial of accommodation and failure to engage in the interactive process, also on the basis of alleged hostility by General Manager, Foerster. 

The Court then commented about summary judgment in discrimination cases as follows, which is why I entitled this post the way I did:

We have previously held in several cases that it should not take much for plaintiff in a discrimination case to overcome a summary judgment motion. See, e.g., Diaz v. Eagle Produce Ltd. P'ship, 521 F.3d 1201, 1207 (9th Cir.2008); Davis v. Team Elec. Co., 520 F.3d 1080, 1089 (9th Cir.2008); Metoyer v. Chassman, 504 F.3d 919, 939 (9th Cir.2007); Dominguez–Curry v. Nevada Transp. Dep't, 424 F.3d 1027, 1042 (9th Cir.2005); Chuang v. Univ. of Cal. Davis, Bd. of Trustees, 225 F.3d 1115, 1124 (9th Cir.2000). “This is because the ultimate question is one that can only be resolved through a searching inquiry—one that is most appropriately conducted by a factfinder, upon a full record.” Id.

Here, Nigro presented several state law claims that deserved trial. It should not take a whole lot of evidence to establish a genuine issue of material fact in a disability discrimination case, at least where the fact issue on discrimination is genuine and the disability would not preclude gainful employment of a person working with accommodation. We acknowledge that this is not a wholly one-sided case on the side of Nigro, and Sears put forward substantial evidence showing that it had a non-discriminatory reason for terminating Nigro's employment, i.e., Sears's position that Nigro did not comply with Sears's attendance and leave policies resulting in job abandonment. It is possible that Sears will prevail at trial, but the statements attributed to Sears's supervisors by Nigro are, if not dispositive, sufficient to raise a genuine issue for the trier of fact. See Metoyer, 504 F.3d at 939 (holding that an employer's evidence of a non-discriminatory motive does not warrant entry of summary judgment when the employee also proffered evidence to the contrary).

Sure, it's still possible to win summary judgment in state and federal court.  However, there of late has been a shift in courts' willingness to grant summary judgment, at least in my opinion.  The trial courts may fear reversal, as appellate courts frequently do.  Trial courts may perceive that employers rarely take cases to trial and settle, which makes it unlikely that a courtroom will be clogged with cases that cannot be won at trial.  Who knows why the pendulum is shifting.  But it is.  

Employers and their lawyers are going to have to decide how to address this shift, whether it be arbitration in lieu of the court system, taking every case to trial until the courts shift back towards summary judgment, lobbying for a change in the law, or something else. 

This case is Nigro v. Sears Roebuck & Co. and the opinion is here. 

A Pot Pourri of Recent Employment Law Decisions

Here are some recent significant California employment law developments I missed. Long post, but chock full of employment law goodness. Or something:

Employer's Summary Judgment on Disability Discrimination and Related Claims
The court of appeal in Swanson v. Morongo Unified School District (opinion here) reversed summary judgment in favor of the school district.

Swanson was a teacher who was treated with breast cancer.  The school district voted not to renew her contract based on her performance.  Swanson believed the district's vote was based on her cancer and treatment.  She also claimed that the district failed to accommodate her by refusing to allow her to teach a second grade class rather than the assignment they gave her, and failed to adequately engage in the "interactive process."

On the discrimination claim, the court of appeal acknowledged the district demonstrated Swanson's poor performance as a legitimate reason.  That shifted the burden to Swanson to raise a triable issue of fact regarding whether discrimination motivated the district, rather than performance. Here is the pretext analysis:

Swanson had to present evidence showing (1) the District’s stated reason for not renewing her contract was untrue or pretextual; (2) the District acted with a discriminatory animus in not renewing her contract; or (3) a combination of the two. *** We conclude Swanson met this burden by presenting evidence establishing a triable issue of fact on whether the District intentionally discriminated against her when making its teaching assignments and its treatment of her after her cancer diagnosis and medical leaves. ***We conclude Swanson met this burden by presenting evidence establishing a triable issue of fact on whether the District intentionally discriminated against her when making its teaching assignments and its treatment of her after her cancer diagnosis and medical leaves. 

Here's the evidence the court found significant:

The evidence the parties presented establishes the following disputed facts creating a triable issue on Swanson’s liability theory: (1) Swanson performed well in the teaching assignments she held during her first two years with the District, but the District gave her a new teaching assignment for the first full school year after she completed her cancer treatments; (2) the District gave Swanson the new assignment knowing it would require her to spend additional time planning and preparing to teach her new class and Swanson’s weakened health condition impaired her ability to do so; (3) the District denied Swanson’s request to teach a second grade class similar to one she recently had taught at her previous school, and instead assigned the available second grade class to another teacher; (4) the District assigned Swanson to teach a kindergarten class even though she had not taught kindergarten in nearly 30 years and expressed concern her weakened immune system could not protect her from the many illnesses prevalent in kindergarten classes; (5) although promising to do so, Lowe did not provide Swanson the preevaluation format she needed to prepare for her first series of teacher observations; (6) the District did not provide Swanson the mentor teacher she requested after receiving the remediation plan or any of the other training or assistance she requested; (7) Lowe told Swanson the District wanted him to make a determination on her employment status before he had time to complete the second series of teacher observations; (8) Lowe asked Swanson to resign her teaching position even though he gave her a positive review on the first teaching observation following the remediation plan and implied her review on the second observation also would be positive; and (9) the District’s Board of Education voted not to renew Swanson’s contract before she completed the remediation plan and all of the observations were conducted.

This is to say that the court of appeal felt that a jury should decide whether the district's personnel actions against Swanson that led to her poor performance were motivated by her disability. Therefore, to win these cases, the employer should show on summary judgment that it treated the plaintiff the same as the other, similarly situated, employees.

On the failure to accommodate claim, the plaintiff claimed she would have been able to perform her essential job functions if she was assigned to teach a second grade class, rather than the kindergarten class she was assigned. Although the district showed the court several accommodations it provided, the court was unpersuaded that the district was entitled to summary judgment:

Swanson does not claim the District failed to grant her leave or any other scheduling accommodation. Instead, she alleges the District failed to reasonably accommodate her cancer-related conditions because it refused to provide her the accommodation she sought after the District decided to move her out of the reading specialist position she held during the 2007/2008 school year. Specifically, she alleges the District refused her request to teach an available second grade class. According to Swanson, the second grade class assignment was a reasonable accommodation that would allow her to perform her essential job functions because she recently had taught a second grade class when working in another district, and therefore was familiar with the curriculum and children of that age. Swanson alleged any other new teaching assignment would require additional time to prepare and plan lessons, but the effect of her cancer treatments jeopardized her ability to prepare for her new assignment. 

         *  *  *

To meet its initial burden on Swanson’s failure to accommodate claims, the District therefore had to present evidence showing the second grade position Swanson sought was not available or otherwise was not a reasonable accommodation, or the fifth grade or kindergarten assignments the District offered were reasonable accommodations that would have allowed Swanson to adequately perform her essential job functions. The District produced no such evidence. 

The court also held that the district did not adequately engage in the interactive process to determine an accommodation:

The District contends Swanson’s interactive process claims fail because it engaged in the interactive process by switching her from fifth grade to kindergarten when she objected to the fifth grade assignment. That contention is not adequate to satisfy the District’s initial burden on summary judgment. The FEHA required the District to engage in an ongoing dialogue regarding the accommodations Swanson believed she needed to mitigate her cancer-related conditions, but the District failed to present any evidence to show it engaged Swanson in such a dialogue. For example, the District offers no evidence to show it discussed with Swanson the second grade assignment she sought or provided any explanation why it could not grant her request as a reasonable accommodation. To the contrary, the evidence shows the District simply assigned Swanson to teach kindergarten and failed to engage in any further discussion with her. Accordingly, the trial court erred in granting summary judgment on the interactive process claims. 

Arbitration Compelled Even Though Insufficient Proof Unsigned Arbitration Policy Was in Effect

Stephanie Cruise signed an employment application with Kroger Corporation, in which she agreed to mandatory, final, binding arbitration. The application referenced a separate mediation and arbitration policy, which was "incorporated by reference."  After her termination, Cruise sued Kroger. Kroger moved to compel arbitration. The trial court denied the motion, holding that Kroger had not proved that Cruise had received the arbitration policy, or that the one attached to the motion was the one she had allegedly received.

The court of appeal reversed the trial court and ordered arbitration. The court held that the following language in the application "eliminate[d]" Cruise's argument there was no agreement to arbitrate:

“MANDATORY FINAL & BINDING ARBITRATION: I acknowledge and understand that the Company has a Dispute Resolution Program that includes a Mediation & Binding Arbitration Policy (the ‘Policy’) applicable to all employees and applicants for employment . . . . I acknowledge, understand and agree that the Policy is incorporated into this Employment Application by this reference as though it is set forth in full, . . . the Policy applies to any employment-related disputes that exist or arise between Employees and the Company . . . and that the Policy requires that any Employee who wishes to initiate or participate in formal proceedings to resolve any Covered Disputes must submit the claims or disputes to final and binding arbitration in accordance with the Policy.” (Italics added.)

The court rejected Cruise's argument that the employer did not sign the application, reasoning that the employer submitted the application to Cruise of signature, and that it was Kroger's own application, after all.

BUT, what of the policy?  The court of appeal accepted the trial court's conclusion that the employer had not established the existence of the policy, which governed the terms and procedures re arbitration. The court of appeal, however, ruled that Cruise was still obligated to arbitrate, only under the California Arbitration Act.

The only impact of Kroger‟s inability to establish the contents of the 2007 Arbitration Policy is that Kroger failed to establish that the parties agreed to govern their arbitration by procedures different from those prescribed in the CAA (§ 1280 et seq.). Unless the parties otherwise agree, the conduct of an arbitration proceeding is controlled by the CAA. (See, e.g., §§ 1281.6, 1282, 1282.2.) Here, because Kroger failed to establish an agreement to the contrary, the instant arbitration proceeding is to be governed by the procedures set forth in the CAA. Because this arbitration is controlled by California statutory and case law, Cruise‟s arguments that Kroger‟s Arbitration Policy is unconscionable, both procedurally and substantively, are meritless.

If this case remains good law, then (1) employers can include clear agreements to arbitrate in applications and (2) they can rely on the California Arbitration Act rather than prescribe specific procedures.

This case is Cruise v. Kroger Co .and the opinion is here.

                                                                 * * *
Here are some narrow decisions, but which may contain helpful holdings for other cases.

LA Hotel Service Charge Ordinance - Class Action - UCL Claim 

The court of appeal in Audio Visual Services Group, Inc. v. Superior Court opinion here, handled a narrow issue: whether Los Angeles's Hotel Service Charge Reform Ordinance applied to third party employees who do not traditionally depend on tips.  The Ordinance requires certain hotels to pay certain employees all service charges added to customers bills.  The Audio Visual employees provided AV services to hotels, for which they charged a fee plus a service charge. The plaintiffs sued, claiming they were owed that service charge. The Court of Appeal issued a writ, sustaining the employer's demurrer to the class complaint (extraordinary in and of itself). The court of appeal decided that the ordinance does not apply to Audio Visual's employees.  Of note, the court clearly held that the employees "unfair competition claim" under Business and Professions Code section 17200 was not actionable because the statutory claim also was without merit. So, this case can help in other UCL actions. Money quote:

In light of our construction of the Ordinance that Solares, an audio-visual technician, is not among the class of hotel workers entitled to be paid service charges pursuant to the Ordinance, Solares cannot assert a UCL claim against PSAV. Business and Professions Code section 17200 defines “unfair competition” as “any unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act or practice and unfair, deceptive, untrue or misleading advertising and any act prohibited by Chapter 1 (commencing with [Business and Professions Code ] Section 17500) of Part 3 of Division 7 of the Business and Professions Code.” The UCL claim is dependent upon a violation of the Ordinance. Thus, the class action complaint failed to state a cause of action.

U.S. Supreme Court: Whistle Blower Under Homeland Security Act Protected

Department of Homeland Security v. MacLean (opinion here)  involves an Air Marshall who reported  to MSNBC that the TSA had canceled Air Marshall missions during a time when there was a heightened security alert regarding possible Al Qaeda highjackings.  He had been told that TSA canceled missions to save money.  After MacLean made the disclosure, TSA reversed its position under pressure from Congress.

The TSA discovered MacLean was the leaker and fired him in 2006.  He sued for whistleblower retaliation. TSA argued that MacLean's disclosure was "specifically prohibited" by its regulation, which was as good as "law." TSA had issued regulations prohibiting disclosure of what they called "sensitive security information." That information could include "information concerning specific numbers of Federal Air Marshals, deployments or missions, and the methods involved in such operations.”

Federal law generally provides whistleblower protections to an employee who discloses information revealing “any violation of any law, rule, or regulation,” or “a substantial and specific danger to public health or safety.” 5 U. S. C. §2302(b)(8)(A). An exception exists, however, for disclosures that are “specifically prohibited by law.”

So, the question for the Court was whether MacLean's disclosure was prohibited by law.  The Court held (7-2) that the statute's use of "specifically prohibited by law" meant statutory law, rather than regulations.  The Court reasoned that Congress had used "law, rule or regulation" throughout the whistleblower law, but limited the disclosure exception only to "law."

 

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.

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.