Two Recent California Employment Law Decisions of Note

I know I haven't been blogging as much lately. I don't want to let you three readers down.
I'll try to do better.  Sometimes I think this blog has run its course, but then I get a meaningful piece of hate mail and my faith is restored.

Don't worry, you can catch up on all of the year's significant decisions at our upcoming legal update, which you can attend in person or via a convenient webinar.

Here are two recent employment law opinions of note, briefly summarized -

Class Action - No Precertification Discovery to Find New Plaintiff When Original Plaintiff Had No Case.

The plaintiff alleged that CVS has a policy under which it automatically terminates employment of those who perform no work for 45 consecutive days.  (It seems unlikely that such a policy would exist without containing any exceptions, given the need for FMLA/ CFRA / PDL leave).

The problem is that the plaintiff herself did not miss 45 days of work and was not fired under that policy. She was dismissed for lack of standing.

But the plaintiff's attorneys tried to obtain discovery of all the names and addresses of everyone fired under the alleged policy, despite the lack of a viable client.

There is case law allowing the search for a new plaintiff in class action cases, but only when the original plaintiff had some sort of viable case.  Here, the court of appeal was having none of it:

Deluca was never a member of the class she sought to represent. She does not claim a disability and CVS did not terminate her. We are hard pressed to explain why the trial court stated it “does not find that Deluca or her counsel had no reasonable, good faith belief that she lacked standing when the suit was initiated.”  * * * *

Class actions rest on considerations of equity and justice. Based on the facts before us, and applying the Parris test, we find the actual or potential abuse of the class action procedure outweighs the potential benefits that might be gained. Therefore, the trial court abused its discretion in allowing the proposed precertification discovery.

This case is CVS Pharmacy, Inc. v. Superior Court and the opinion is here.


Retaliation Claims Under Lab. Code Section 1102.5(b) Are Independent from Common Law Wrongful Termination (Tameny) Claims

The plaintiff in Cardenas v. Fanaian, DDS was a nurse who lost her wedding ring at work.   She filed a police report. The dentist / practice owner objected and fired the nurse. She sued under Labor Code section 1102.5, which prohibits retaliation against employees who report illegal conduct to law enforcement.  She also sued for wrongful termination in violation of public policy.   The jury awarded her damages.

On appeal, the defense lawyers mishandled the arguments according to the court of appeal. However, the court decided NOT to rule on the applicability of the wrongful termination claim.  There was a good argument that her "complaint" that someone stole her ring was not a "public" policy issue.

On the statutory claim, though, you can't fire someone for going to the police about a co-worker:

The special verdict findings bring this case squarely within the parameters of section 1102.5. The jury determined that Cardenas reported a workplace theft of her property to the police. Theft is a violation of the law. (Pen. Code, § 484.) The jury found that she was subsequently terminated from her employment and that her report to the police was a motivating reason for her termination. Thus, she engaged in protected activity, was subjected to an adverse employment action and there was a causal link between the two. (McVeigh, supra, 213 Cal.App.4th at p. 468.) She met all of the statutory elements of a claim under section 1102.5. She was not required to prove anything more.

So, this case is significant because section 1102.5 does not require reports about the employer's wrongdoing pertaining to business issues.  Rather, the law prohibits retaliation even if the employee makes a report to the government about something entirely unrelated to the employer.

The opinion in Cardenas v. Fanaian is here.

Another Non-Solicit Bites the Dust

The Court of Appeal took up a complex lawsuit involving claims and cross-claims of unfair competition, including strong agreements not to compete or solicit and choices of law and forum clauses. The Court expanded on the decision this summer in The Retirement Group v. Galante, posted here.

Basically, Dowell, other employees and their new employer, St. Jude, sued Biosense Webster, which was attempting to enforce a non-compete agreement, which included broad non-solicitation clauses. The Court of Appeal agreed with the trial court that the agreements were unenforceable. Here is some language from the opinion:

Biosense contends that the clauses are valid because they were tailored to protect trade secrets or confidential information, and as such satisfy the so-called trade secret exception, citing cases such as Thompson v. Impaxx, Inc. (2003) 113 Cal.App.4th 1425, 1429–1430; Whyte v. Schlage Lock Co. (2002) 101 Cal.App.4th 1443, 1462; Metro Traffic, supra, 22 Cal.App.4th at p. 860; and American Paper & Packaging Products, Inc. v. Kirgan (1986) 183 Cal.App.3d 1318, 1322. Plaintiffs counter that in light of our Supreme Court’s recent decision of Edwards, supra, 44 Cal.4th 937, a common law trade secret exception no longer exists.The Court in Edwards concluded that section 16600 “prohibits employee noncompetition agreements unless the agreement falls within a statutory exception.” (Edwards, supra, 44 Cal.4th at p. 942.) . . . .

* * *

Although we doubt the continued viability of the common law trade secret exception to covenants not to compete, we need not resolve the issue here. Even assuming the exception exists, we agree with the trial court that it has no application here. This is so because the noncompete and nonsolicitation clauses in the agreements are not narrowly tailored or carefully limited to the protection of trade secrets, but are so broadly worded as to restrain competition. ...

Biosense argues that the clauses in the agreements are narrowly tailored to protect trade secrets and confidential information because they are “tethered” to the use of confidential information, and are triggered only when the former employee’s services for a competitor implicate the use of confidential information. As such, to the extent that no confidential information was disclosed or made known to Dowell and Chapman during their employment with Biosense, the noncompete clause would never be triggered. But this argument ignores the broad wording of the agreements. The noncompete clause prohibits an employee from rendering services, directly or indirectly, to a competitor where those services could enhance the use or marketability of a conflicting product through the use of confidential information to which the employee had access at Biosense. “Confidential information” is broadly
defined as information disclosed to or known by the employee, including such
information as the number or location of sales representatives, the names of customers, customer preferences, needs, requirements, purchasing histories or
other customer-specific information. Given such an inclusive and broad list of confidential information, it seems nearly impossible that employees like Dowell and Chapman, who worked directly with customers, would not have possession of such information. The prohibition here is not unlike the noncompete clause found facially invalid by the court in D’Sa, supra, 85 Cal.App.4th at p. 930. . . . .

We also reject the argument of Biosense that the nonsolicitation clause is narrowly tailored to protect trade secrets and confidential information. The same argument was rejected by the Galante court, which noted: “However, Edwards rejected the claim that antisolicitation clauses could be exempt from section 16600 if the conduct covered by such clauses fell within the ‘narrow-restraint’ exception discussed in Campbell (Edwards, supra, 44 Cal.4th at pp. 948–950), and we decline TRG’s implicit invitation to engraft that exception onto this case.” (Galante, supra, 176 Cal.App.4th at p. 1241.) Moreover, the clause at issue here goes well beyond prohibiting active solicitation by prohibiting departing employees from selling or rendering any services to Biosense customers or directly or indirectly assisting others to do so—even if it is the customer who solicits the former employee. (See
Morris v. Harris (1954) 127 Cal.App.2d 476, 478 [invalidating restraint that
prohibited employee from providing services to former customers who sought him
out without any solicitation].)

St. Jude, though, lost on its attempt to enjoin Biosense from enforcing its non-compete agreement against all employees in California. The court said that St. Jude had no standing under the UCL to enforce an injunction in favor of plaintiffs not before the court.

Biosense cross-claimed against St. Jude for "raiding" by hiring Dowell and other employees. The Court of Appeal again affirmed summary judgment against Biosense, holding there was no evidence of unlawful conduct by St. Jude, which by default has the right to hire away St. Jude employees.

Biosense argued St. Jude used similar agreements to prevent competition by its own former employees. Therefore, Biosense reasoned, St. Jude came into court with "unclean hands." No sale. St. Jude's alleged unfair practices with respect to their own employees did not go to the heart of the matter with respect to Dowell's suit against Biosense. Therefore, unclean hands did not apply.

So, lots to read. Bottom line, though, is that a non-solicit probably is not going to be enforced except as a remedy for trade secret violations, not as a prophylactic measure where there is no finding of actual or threatened misappropriation under the UTSA. The agreement here was too broad, but there does not seem to be much room left for clauses that prohibit solicitation merely because an employee is exposed to "confidential" information and might use them some day.

The case is Dowell v. Biosense Webster, Inc. and the opinion is here.