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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

9th Circuit - Employee Can Opt out of FMLA, Even at Her Peril

Maria Escriba found out her dad was ill in Guatemala.  She told her bosses at Foster Poultry Farms that her father was sick.  But she asked to use two weeks'  vacation time to visit. She did not request FMLA leave.  She said "no" when the company asked her if she needed more than two weeks' vacation time.  She took more than two weeks off anyway. She was discharged under the no-call / no-show policy.

Her argument was that she did not have to request FMLA leave.  The employer should have designated all her time off as FMLA time, protecting her from discharge.   She exhausted the vacation time, did not request FMLA leave, did not ask for an extension, did not have her husband ask for an extension (although he worked for the same employer), and so, was no-call no show.  Even the union figured she'd be fired.  The union was right.

Escriba then sued under FMLA and analogous California law, the California Family Rights Act.
The district court let her claims go to the jury. After a "short" deliberation, the jury found for the employer.  The key issue at trial and on appeal was whether Escriba's time off qualified as FMLA, even though she declined FMLA.   The Court analyzed the issue:

Holding that simply referencing an FMLA-qualifying reason triggers FMLA protections would place employers like Foster Farms in an untenable situation if the employee’s stated desire is not to take FMLA leave. The employer could find itself open to liability for forcing FMLA leave on the unwilling employee. See, e.g., Wysong v. Dow Chem. Co., 503 F.3d 441, 449 (6th Cir. 2007) (noting that “[a]n involuntary-leave claim,” alleging that an “employer forces an employee to take FMLA leave,” is “really a type of
interference claim”). We thus conclude that an employee can affirmatively decline to use FMLA leave, even if the underlying reason for seeking the leave would have invoked FMLA protection. See, e.g., Ridings v. Riverside Med. Ctr.537 F.3d 755, 769 n.3 (7th Cir. 2008) (“If an employee does not wish to take FMLA leave but continues to be absent from work, then the employee must have a reason for the absence that is acceptable under the employer’s policies, otherwise termination is justified.” (emphasis added)).

The Court also upheld the jury's conclusion that Escriba indeed declined to use FMLA. There was evidence at trial that she wanted to preserve her FMLA entitlement. And she knew the ropes, apparently, because she had sought FMLA leave on 15 previous occasions

there is substantial evidence that Escriba elected not to take FMLA leave. After Linda Mendoza’s initial meeting with Escriba on November 19, 2007, Mendoza met with Escriba and an interpreter, twice asking if Escriba needed more time in Guatemala. Escriba twice answered “no.” Mendoza testified that she then told Escriba to visit the Human Resources Department if she later decided to request more than two weeks of leave.

This decision is good for employees, too.  For example, if a pregnant employee wishes to use vacation to care for a parent so she can preserve 12 weeks of FMLA for baby bonding, should she be able to do so?  See?

This case is Escriba v. Foster Poultry Farms, Inc. and the opinion is here. 

Court of Appeal: Request for Accommodation Not Protected Activity Supporting FEHA Retaliation Claim and Much More

The Legislature passed a paid, organ donation leave provision a couple of years ago (Labor Code Sections 1508-13), which became effective January 1, 2011.  (The court calls it the Donation Protection Act or DPA) Upon hire in September 2010, Scott Rope told his new employer, Auto-Chlor System of Washington, Inc. that he would need time off in February 2011 to donate a kidney to his sister.   When he found out about the new paid leave law, he asked for a longer leave under the new statute.

But Auto-Chlor fired Rope on December 30, 2010, just two days before the effective date of the new law, for poor performance.  Rope sued on a variety of theories.

The court did not allow Rope to sue based on the Labor Code provision, as it did not apply to his employment.  Statutes do not operate retroactively unless the legislature specifies that they do.  This law did not so specify.   But that's not why I posted.

Retaliation for Requesting Accommodation

Although Rope's DPA lawsuit was cut short, he also claimed he suffered retaliation for requesting an accommodation under the Fair Employment and Housing Act.  Putting aside that the request was not for his own disability (he had none), the court addressed whether a retaliation claim will lie when the employee alleges retaliation based on requesting an accommodation under FEHA.  The court held it could not.  First the court defined what type of conduct FEHA retaliation claims may be based on:

Rope alleged he suffered retaliation for engaging in the FEHA ―protected activities of requesting leave for his sister‘s disability/medical condition....The question here is whether Rope‘s request for paid leave as an accommodation qualifies as a ―protected activity within the meaning of section 12940, subdivision (h). ...

Protected conduct under section 12940, subdivision (h) may take many forms. The statute ―makes it an unlawful employment practice [f]or any employer . . . to discharge, expel, or otherwise discriminate against any person because the person 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.(Yanowitz, supra, 36 Cal.4th at p. 1042.)  ...

FEHA‘s implementing regulations help clarify what constitutes protected activity. They state: ―(a)(1) Opposition to practices prohibited by [FEHA] includes, . . . : [¶] (A) Seeking the advice of the Department [Department of Fair Employment and Housing] or Commission [Fair Employment and Housing Commission], . . . ; [¶] (B) Assisting or advising any person in seeking the advice of the Department or Commission, . . . ; [¶] (C) Opposing employment practices which an individual reasonably believes to exist and believes to be a violation of the Act; [¶] (D) Participating in an activity which is perceived by the employer or other covered entity as opposition to discrimination, whether or not so intended by the individual expressing the opposition; or [¶] (E) Contacting, communicating with or participating in the proceeding of a local human rights or civil rights agency regarding employment discrimination on a basis enumerated in the Act. [¶] (2) Assistance with or participation in the proceedings of the Commission or Department includes, but is not limited to: [¶] (A) Contacting, communicating with or participating in the proceedings of the Department or Commission due to a good faith belief that the Act has been violated; or [¶] (B) Involvement as a potential witness which an employer or other covered entity perceives as participation in an activity of the Department or the Commission.‖ (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 2, § 7287.8, subd. (a).)

And here is the conclusion:

we find no support in the regulations or case law for the proposition that a mere request—or even repeated requests—for an accommodation, without more, constitutes a protected activity sufficient to support a claim for retaliation in violation of FEHA. On the contrary, case law and FEHA‘s implementing regulations are uniformly premised on the principle that the nature of activities protected by subdivision (h) demonstrate some degree of opposition to or protest of the employer‘s conduct or practices based on the employee‘s reasonable belief that the employer‘s action or practice is unlawful....)

So, no retaliation claims based on a requested accommodation. 

Discrimination Based on Association

Rope himself did not have a disability. But he claimed he was "associated" with his sister, who did. The Court addressed (maybe for the first time under FEHA) a claim of discrimination against an "association" with a person who has a disability.  The court relied on a federal case out of the Seventh Circuit, quoting from the opinion:

Three types of situation are, we believe, within the intended scope of the rarely litigated . . . association section. We‘ll call them "expense," "disability by association," and "distraction." They can be illustrated as follows: an employee is fired (or suffers some other adverse personnel action) because (1) (expense) his spouse has a disability that is costly to the employer because the spouse is covered by the company‘s health plan; (2a) (disability by association) the employee‘s homosexual companion is infected with HIV and the employer fears the employee may also have become infected, through sexual contact with the companion; (2b) (another example of disability by association) one of the employee‘s blood relatives has a disabling ailment that has a genetic component and the employee is likely to develop the disability as well (maybe the relative is an identical twin); (3) ('distraction‘) the employee is somewhat inattentive at work because his spouse or child has a disability that requires his attention, yet not so inattentive that to perform to his employer‘s satisfaction he would need an accommodation, perhaps by being allowed to work shorter hours.

After discussing these categories, the court found that Rope could proceed on his association claim, and the derivative common law claim for wrongful termination:

In our view, Rope has pleaded minimally sufficient facts to state a prima facie ―expense‖ association claim under FEHA The SAC alleges that: From October through December 2010, Rope informed his superiors at Auto-Chlor that he intended to donate a kidney to his sister and that he intended to take a leave of absence to make the organ donation in February 2011; in or about November 2010, Rope informed his superiors about the DPA and requested 30 days paid leave under the DPA, beginning in February 2011; after January 1, 2011, Rope‘s leave under the DPA would cause Auto-Chlor to incur certain expense; and Auto-Chlor terminated Rope‘s employment on the pretext of poor performance on December 30, 2010, two days before the DPA took effect. The reasonable inference is that Auto-Chlor acted preemptively to avoid an expense stemming from Rope‘s association with his physically disabled sister.

This case is Rope v. Auto-Chlor System of Washington, Inc. and the opinion is here.

Court of Appeal: Desperate Housewives Case

From the court of appeal's opinion:

Touchstone Television Productions (Touchstone) hired actress Nicollette Sheridan (Sheridan) to appear in the first season of the television series Desperate Housewives. The agreement gave Touchstone the exclusive option to renew Sheridan‟s services on an annual basis for an additional six seasons. Touchstone renewed Sheridan's services up to and including Season 5. During Season 5, Touchstone informed Sheridan it would not renew her contract for Season 6.

In case you hadn't heard about this, Sheridan sued for wrongful termination and other torts, claiming that

During the September 24, 2008 filming of a Season 5 episode of Desperate Housewives, an incident occurred between Sheridan and Cherry, the series‟ creator. Sheridan claims that Cherry hit her. Thereafter, Sheridan complained to Touchstone about Cherry‟s (alleged) battery.

Then, Touchstone decided not to renew Sheridan for the final season, killed her character, but had her return as a ghost.  Yes, I did not make this up.  No, I never watched an episode.

A jury deadlocked on whether Touchstone wrongfully terminated Sheridan in violation of public policy (retaliation for her complaint she was battered).   The trial court repeatedly rejected Touchstone's argument that non-renewal of annual contracts do not give rise to wrongful termination claims.

The Court of Appeal, however, disagreed: "Decisional law does not allow a plaintiff to sue for wrongful termination in violation of public policy based upon an employer‟s refusal to renew an employment contract. "

Like every good story, though, this one has a twist. The Court of Appeal permitted Sheridan to sue under Labor Code Section 6310(b):

(b) Any employee who is discharged, threatened with discharge, demoted, suspended, or in any other manner discriminated against in the terms and conditions of employment by his or her employer because the employee has made a bona fide oral or written complaint to the division, other governmental agencies having statutory responsibility for or assisting the division with reference to employee safety or health, his or her employer, or his or her representative, of unsafe working conditions, or work practices, in his or her employment or place of employment, or has participated in an employer-employee occupational health and safety committee, shall be entitled to reinstatement and reimbursement for lost wages and work benefits caused by the acts of the employer. Any employer who willfully refuses to rehire, promote, or otherwise restore an employee or former employee who has been determined to be eligible for rehiring or promotion by a grievance procedure, arbitration, or hearing authorized by law, is guilty of a misdemeanor.

So, why is this important?  Because the statute allows for "non-renewal" of employment as a basis for a claim. But the statute only allows for "reinstatement and reimbursement for lost wages and work benefits . . .. "  So, in Ms. Sheridan's case, she would be entitled to the one-year contract fee and related benefits, but not to emotional distress, front pay, or punitive damages.

For a minute, employers may have become interested in entering into six-month contracts with employees. But, as you can see, statutes may provide remeides, even if the common law does not.  On the other hand, these contracts, if done right, could limit exposure on the lost wages measure of damages .... maybe?  Another day and another case...

The case is Touchstone Television Productions v. Superior Court and the opinion is here.

Court of Appeal Expands Wrongful Discharge Law

OK, so let's say an employee has a non-compete agreement with a former employer. After Employee is hired by new employer, the former employer sends a "cease and desist" letter to the new employer. The new employer, fearling litigation, fires the employee. Employee sues new employer for wrongful discharge?!

Yep. I know....#@^!%.

In 2003, Silguero began employment with Floor Seal Technology, Inc. as a sales representative. In August 2007, FST threatened Silguero with termination unless she signed a confidentiality agreement. The agreement prohibited her from sales activities for 18 months following either departure or termination. (A Non-compete). FST terminated Silguero's employment in October 2007.

Shortly therafter, Silguero was hired by with Creteguard. But FST contacted Creteguard and requested enforcement of the non-compete.

In November 2007, Creteguard's chief executive officer, Thomas Nucum, did not call me. Instead, he informed Silguero in writing that "although we believe that non-compete clauses are not legally enforceable here in California, [Creteguard] would like to keep the same respect and understanding with colleagues in the same industry." Nice.

Silguero argued the noncompetition agreement enforced by Creteguard was void pursuant to section 16600, that no statutory exception to section 16600 applied, and that Creteguard's enforcement violated public policy.

The Court of Appeal agreed:

The complaint in this case alleges an ―understanding‖ between Creteguard and FST pursuant to which Creteguard would honor FST‘s noncompetition agreement. Creteguard admitted in writing that it entered into this understanding with FST, ―although [Creteguard] believe[d] that non-compete clauses are not legally enforceable here in California,‖ because Creteguard ―would like to keep the same respect and understanding with colleagues in the same industry. This alleged understanding is tantamount to a no-hire agreement.

No hire agreements are illegal too.

This case is Silguero v. Creteguard, Inc. and the opinion is here.

Court of Appeal: Wrongful Termination Alone Insufficient for Punitive Damages Liability

Scott sued her employer, Phoenix Schools, for wrongful termination in violation of public policy. A jury awarded her damages, including punitive damages. The Court of Appeal upheld the verdict for wrongful termination and the compensatory damages, but reversed on the punitive damages claim:

Thus, in order to sustain the punitive damages award, the evidence must leave no substantial doubt that Phoenix engaged in despicable conduct, or conduct intended to cause injury to Scott. “‘Something more than the mere commission of a tort is always required for punitive damages. There must be circumstances of aggravation or outrage, such as spite or “malice,” or a fraudulent or evil motive on the part of the defendant, or such a conscious and deliberate disregard of the interests of others that his conduct may be called wilful or wanton.’ [Citation.]” (Taylor v. Superior Court (1979) 24 Cal.3d 890, 894-895, italics omitted.) The only evidence of wrongful conduct directed toward Scott was her termination for an improper reason. This evidence was insufficient to support a finding of despicable conduct, because such action is not vile, base or contemptible.

So, a wrongful termination in violation of public policy, without additional evidence of malice, is not enough to sustain an award of punitive damages.

The case is Scott v. Phoenix Schools and the opinion is here.

California Supreme Court: Public Employee May Be Disciplined for Refusing to Cooperate in Investigation

The California Supreme Court held that a deputy public defender was properly discharged when he refused to answer questions during an internal investigation. He argued that he could not be compelled to answer because he invoked his Fifth Amendment right to refuse to answer questions on the grounds they might incriminate him.

But the investigator, a supervisor attorney at the public defender's office, had informed him that his cooperation in the investigation would not be used against him in criminal proceedings. Was his refusal to testify protected conduct? The court unanimously said "no":

a public employee may be compelled, by threat of job discipline, to answer questions about the employee’s job performance, so long as the employee is not required, on pain of dismissal, to waive the constitutional protection against criminal use of those answers. Here, plaintiff was not ordered to choose between his constitutional rights and his job. On the contrary, he was truthfully told that, in fact, no criminal use could be made of any answers he gave under compulsion by the employer. In the context of a noncriminal public employment investigation, the employer was not further required to seek, obtain, and confer a formal guarantee of immunity before requiring its employee to answer questions related to that investigation.

The case is Spielbauer v. County of Santa Clara and the opinion is here.

Court of Appeal Applies Anti-SLAPP Law to EDD Report

Dible worked for the Haight Ashbury Free Clinic as a counselor. The clinic terminated her employment for performance reasons. The clinic contested her unemployment claim. Ms. Dible sued for defamation and other claims. However, after some litigation, the clinic moved the court under the anti-SLAPP statute to dismiss the claim. Why? Because the clinic exercised its First Amendment rights to make a report in an official proceeding. The Court of Appeal agreed that the anti-SLAPP statute barred her claim. Dible then argued that she should be able to assert a claim for "defamation by compelled self-publication," because the clinic should have known Dible would have to re-publish to third parties the clinic's assertions regarding her performance.

The Court of Appeal disagreed:

Here we are clearly being asked to create a wider exception for claimants who have not republished where it is foreseeable that they might do so in the future. We decline to do so. Such a rule would require courts to engage in considerable speculation as to future conduct and lead to untenable attempts to speculate on future damage. A court could not, for instance, account for the possibility that after a plaintiff has received an award for damages in the form of lost future wages, he or she might republish while seeking a job and be given the job, thus not be damaged, nonetheless.

Since publication or republication to a third person is necessary to establish the cause of action of defamation, we conclude that plaintiff cannot establish a probability of success upon her defamation claim. The motion pursuant to section 425.16 was therefore properly granted.

The case is Dible v. Haight Ashbury Free Clinic and the opinion is here.

Narrowcast Supreme Court Opinion Contains Hidden Gems

So, I actually did not read Miklosy v. Regents on the day it was issued. The headline holding is that the state's Whistleblower Protection Act, Gov't Code section 8547 et seq., does not apply to the University of California, unless the University fails to address an internal complaint. Of course, this case is important to the University, its lawyers, its employees, and people who sue the University. But I'm none of those.

Yet, at the end of the opinion, the Court made some key rulings that affect all of us California employment lawyers:
- the court endorsed the long line of court of appeal decisions holding that individuals may not be held liable for wrongful termination in violation of public policy;
- the court held that claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress are preempted by the Workers' Compensation Act even when the conduct alleged violates public policy. The claim for wrongful termination is not preempted, but the common law IIED claim is.
- public entities may not be sued for wrongful termination in violation of public policy.

DGV

NLRA Preempts California Wrongful Termination Claim

Richard Luke was suspended for alleged dishonesty regarding his whereabouts. He then sent an email to his employer's parent's management entitled "trouble brewing." He was promptly fired the next day for circulating an anti-management petition and for ignoring the "chain of command." He testified at his deposition that he and other employees discussed working conditions such as being passed over for promotion, and physical conditions at the wine-label manufacturing plant at which he worked. He thought that was why he was fired. He said discharging him for that reason violated the public policy expressed in Labor Code section 232.5 (no adverse action against employee who "discloses" working conditions.).
In Luke v. Collotype Labels USA, Inc., opinion here, the court of appeal found that section 232.5 is preempted by the National Labor Relations Act. Essentially, Luke's working with other employees to complain about promotions and plant conditions was a "concerted activity" that were "arguably" protected by the NLRA. As such they fall within the "Garmon" preemption doctrine.
Although the court in Luke did not even cite the court of appeal's decision in Grant-Burton v. Covenant Care, 99 Cal.App.4th 1361 (2002), opinion here, this decision contradicts Covenant Care's holding that a common law wrongful termination claim based on section 232 (prohibiting discharge for discussing wages) was viable. The court in Covenant Care addressed the NLRA, but noted the parties had not raised Garmon preemption on appeal, and left that issue for remand. (That sound you hear is me, smacking my forehead really hard.) With all due respect to the court of appeal in Covenant Care, that case was incorrectly decided, as shown by the decision at blog.

California Court: No Preemption of State Law Claims for Bank

Banks have a special weapon in employment litigation (including wrongful termination and even discrimination claims). The National Bank Act preempts these state law claims, at least as they relate to bank "officers."

So, may a bank subject to the National Bank Act designate "officers" at will to come within the preemption provisions? No, said the court of appeal in Ramanathan v. Bank of America. Quoting from an earlier California Supreme Court case, the court reviewed the criteria for evaluating whether a bank employee is an "officer" and covered by the National Bank Act's discharge provisions:

a bank ‘officer’ within the meaning of section 24 possesses the following attributes: First, he or she holds an office created by the board of directors and listed in the bank’s bylaws. (Citation.) Second, he or she is appointed by the board of directors, either directly or pursuant to a delegation of board authority set forth in the bylaws. (Citations.) Third, he or she has the express legal authority to bind the bank in its transactions with borrowers, depositors, customers, or other third parties by executing contracts or other legal instruments on the bank’s behalf. (Citation.)
Fourth, his or her decision-making authority, however it might be limited by
bank rule or policy, relates to fundamental banking operations in such a manner
as to affect potentially the public’s trust in the banking institution. (Citation.) If a particular bank employee holds a position possessing these features, he or she may be viewed as the bank itself in the eyes of third parties. Such an employee is an ‘officer’ and serves at the pleasure of the board of directors.”

The court then applied these criteria and found that Ramanathan, a "vice president," raised a triable issue of fact as to whether he was an officer under the National Bank Act. Therefore, the court vacated summary judgment and remanded for trial on Ramanathan's claims for discrimination, harassment and wrongful termination brought under California law.

Thanks to Connecticut Employment Law Blog for reminding me to post about this case.