Ninth Circuit: Ban on Applicants Who Test Positive for Drugs Not ADA Violation

The Pacific Maritime Association has a "one-strike" rule. If you fail a drug or alcohol test during the applicant screening process, you are barred from consideration for employment. Forever.

Santiago Lopez applied for a longshoreman's job, but he tested positive for marijuana. He claims that when he applied, he was addicted. But once he become a recovering addict, he was entitled to reapply with the protections of the ADA.

The Ninth Circuit disagreed, upholding summary judgment. The court said that the one-strike rule applies to anyone who fails a drug/alcohol test, not just addicts or recovering addicts. The employer also had no knowledge that Lopez was a recovering addict, only that he previously had failed the test.

A dissenting judge in this 2-1 opinion would have given Lopez a chance to save his disparate impact claim. Lopez argued that a rule barring all persons from re-applying could have a "disparate impact" on recovering alcoholics/drug abusers. But Lopez did not support that argument with statistical proof and, therefore, the court did not allow the claim to proceed.

The case is Lopez v. Pacific Maritime Association and the opinion is here.

U.S. Supreme Court Grabs Cat's Paw

There goes Justice Scalia again, ruling for... employees!  Writing for a 6-2 majority, Justice Scalia says:

When the company official who makes the decision to take an adverse employment action is personally acting out of hostility to the employee’s membership in or obligation to a uniformed service, a motivating factor obviously exists. The problem we confront arises when that official has nodiscriminatory animus but is influenced by previous company action that is the product of a like animus in someone else.

Basically, two lower level supervisors were hostile towards Vincent Staub, an xray tech at a hospital. they were annoyed at his reserve duty, which caused absences that had to be covered.  As a reservist, Staub was entitled to job protection under USERRA.  USERRA protects against discrimination against members of the military, basically under the same standards as Title VII.  Thus, if anti-military bias is a "motivating factor" in a negative employment decision, the plaitniff can win.

Here, a non-biased manager fired Staub, but based on a report by the biased supervisors.  The hospital argued that discrimination was therefore not a motivating reason.   This presented a "cat's paw" theory, where the employer claims that the innocent supervisor's decision is independent from the biased supervisor's motivations.

The Supreme Court held:

that if a supervisor performs an act motivated by anti military animus that is intended by the supervisor to cause an adverse employment action,3 and if that act is a proximate cause of the ultimate employment action, then the employer is liable under USERRA

The court did say that the biased supervisor has to have some causation for the negative employment decision or the "motivating reason" standard fails.

Bonus: Those of us unfamiliar with Aesop now know the meaning of the "Cat's Paw" theory.

1The term “cat’s paw” derives from a fable conceived by Aesop, put into verse by La Fontaine in 1679, and injected into United States employment discrimination law by Posner in 1990. See Shager v. Upjohn Co., 913 F. 2d 398, 405 (CA7). In the fable, a monkey induces a cat by flattery to extract roasting chestnuts from the fire. After the cat has done so, burning its paws in the process, the monkey makes offwith the chestnuts and leaves the cat with nothing. A coda to the fable (relevant only marginally, if at all, to employment law) observes that the cat is similar to princes who, flattered by the king, perform serviceson the king’s behalf and receive no reward.

Although this is a USERRA case, given the similiarities with anti-discrimination laws, look for this theory to be applied in Title VII cases as well

The case is Staub v. Proctor Hosp. and the opinion is here.

Court of Appeal Limits' Employers' Discretion to Set the Workweek/Workday

The employees at Metson Marine, Inc. worked 14-day straight "hitches," during which they slept on their ships and had to remain within 30-45 minutes of the ship during downtime. These 14-day hitches started on Tuesdays. But the workweek was set as Monday at 12:01 a.m. through Sunday at 11:59 p.m.  As a result, Metson claimed that employees worked a six-day week, followed by a 7 day workweek, and then a two day workweek. 

The plaintiffs challenged the employer's designation of the workweek because it resulted in a less favorable calculation of overtime and of seventh day pay.  The employer relied on certain rulings by the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement, which basically say that the employer can designate any workweek or workday that it wants to, as long as it's consistent.

Surprise, Metson! The Court of Appeal, reversing summary judgment, held that the DLSE's interpretations are entitled to no respect. Rather, a workweek must coincide with the beginning of the work period actually worked:

Plaintiffs contend that premium pay must be calculated based on the "fixed and regular" schedule actually worked and that Metson should not be allowed to subvert the employee protections of section 510 by designating an artificial workweek that does not correspond with the period actually worked. Asserting that their workweek actually began and ended on Tuesday, plaintiffs argue that Metson was required to pay overtime wages for work performed on the seventh and 14th day of each hitch. We agree.

Relying on a federal district court opinion, the Court of Appeal held that the employer cannot set a workweek that differs from the workweek that employees actually work.

Much like the case before this court, the employer in In re Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. relied on the DLSE‟s interpretation of section 500 that " „[t]he beginning of an employee‟s workday need not coincide with the beginning of that employee‟s shift, and an employer may establish different workdays for different shifts.‟ " (In re Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., supra, 505 F.Supp.2d at p. 617.) The court rejected the DLSE interpretation, noting that "the California Supreme Court has held that interpretations contained in the DLSE Manual are non-binding and are entitled to no deference. (Tidewater Marine Western, Inc. v. Bradshaw, supra, 14 Cal.4th at p. 568.) Therefore, to the extent that the DLSE‟s opinion . . . is inconsistent with the Labor Code‟s goal of promoting employee protection, this opinion should be ignored." (In re Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., at p. 617.)

But it's unclear whether the Court of Appeal intends its holding to apply to worksites where employees work from week to week and have different work different days off every week. If an employer sets the workweek from 12:01 a.m Monday to 12:00 p.m. Sunday for all employees, what happens when some employees have Mondays off? What if employees sometimes have Mondays off, and sometimes Tuesdays? Does the employer have to set a different workweek for each employee each week? Also, what happens when employees report to work at different times? When does the workday start? What if the employee is late to work on the first day? Must the workday begin late just to ensure that the employee receives the maximum potential overtime pay? Hopefully, the court will re-consider the breadth of its holding in a petition for re-hearing, or maybe will be depublished..


The court also dealt with "on call" pay. The employees were on for 12 hours and off for 12 hours during the hitches. They rarely were called back to work for emergencies. However, they had to remain within 30-45 minutes of the ship, and could not drink. They also were required to sleep on the ship. On those facts, the court decided that the requirement of sleep on the shift turned all of the down time (less an 8-hour period for sleeping) into hours worked. The court excluded the 8 hours of sleep time on the basis of an agreement between the employer and employees. Unless your business requires employees to sleep on premises, this case probably won't result in a change in the law on this point. However, if you want to exclude sleep time from hours worked when employees are required to sleep on premises, have an agreement. 
 The case is Seymore v. Metson Marine, Inc. and the opinion is here.

California Supreme Court Holds No Arbitration in Lieu of Labor Commissioner Hearing

The California Supreme Court decided that an employer cannot require an employee to go to arbitration instead of a "Berman" hearing before the Labor Commissioner.  Rather, the employee must be permitted to go to the labor commissioner and then the arbitration agreement can be used for the "appeal" de novo.
This 4-3 decision involves lengthy discussions of preemption and unconscionability. 

The majority, led by retiring Justice Moreno, finds that the waiver of the labor commissioner hearing deprives the employee of so many benefits that the arbitration agreement violates public policy.  The U.S. Supreme Court may take a look at this one under the Federal Arbitration Act.  Until then, though, employees get to see the Labor Commissioner, even if they have arbitration agreements.

The case is Sonic-Calabasas A, Inc. v. Moreno and the opinion is here.

Court of Appeal: Meals and Breaks are Penalties for Attorneys Fees Law

Did you know the Labor Code permits employers to recover attorney's fees when the employer wins certain wage claims?  It's true.

Labor Code section 218.5 contains a reciprocal fee recovery provision in favor of the "prevailing party" in certain wage disputes. Section 218.5 states, in relevant part: "In any action brought for the nonpayment of wages, fringe benefits, or health and welfare or pension fund contributions, the court shall award reasonable attorney‟s fees and costs to the prevailing party if any party to the action requests attorney‟s fees and costs upon the initiation of the action. . . . [¶] This section does not apply to any action for which attorney’s fees are recoverable under Section 1194."

 In light of the last sentence, claims involving "overtime" are not subject to this fee statute, but rather section 1194.  That is a "one way" fee provision that precludes employers from recovering fees even when they win claims for unpaid overtime.  Thus, the Court of Appeal decided that UPS could not recover attorney's fees when it won a lawsuit by a single plaintiff challenging his exemption.

But what if the complaint alleges unpaid overtime AND other wage claims.  The Court of Appeal decided that fees MAY be recovered by employers relating to the non-overtime-related claims.  But then things got weird.

In United Parcel Service Wage and Hour Cases, the court dealt with Thomas McGann's individual claim, which not only involved overtime, but also meals and breaks.  UPS sought its fees when it prevailed on the meal and break portion of the case. 

Section 218.5 applies only to "wage" claims.  Rather than award UPS the fees, the Court of Appeal held that meal and rest period penalties are penalties for purposes of the attorneys' fees statute permitting employers to recover attorney's fees for unsuccessful suits to recover wages.  But wait. I thought the California Supreme Court said that meal period penalties were wages for the purposes of the statute of limitations.  You're right.  The Supreme Court did so in the Murphy v. Kenneth Cole case, discussed here.

But the Court of Appeal decided that Murphy does not apply because it did not address attorney's fees, but rather which statute of limitations should apply.

UPS contends Murphy establishes that an action for recovery of the statutory remedies for missed meal and rest breaks is a claim for “nonpayment of wages” within the meaning of Labor Code section 218.5. UPS offers no analysis to support its contention that Murphy, which decided a statute of limitations question under the Code of Civil Procedure, should control or guide our analysis of the Labor Code attorney fees provisions. We are not persuaded that extending the holding in Murphy to the discreet fee issue presented here is appropriate or in keeping with our duty to construe statutes regulating the conditions of employment liberally, “with an eye to protecting employees.” (Murphy, supra, 40 Cal.4th at p. 1111; accord, Ramirez v. Yosemite Water Co. (1999) 20 Cal.4th 785, 794.)

Recognizing that the statutory remedy for denial of breaks -- payment of one additional hour of regular pay for each day a break is denied -- was susceptible to an interpretation as a wage and also as a penalty, the Supreme Court in Murphy found the remedy provided in Labor Code section 226.7 was primarily intended “to compensate employees for their injuries” occasioned by missed breaks and was, therefore, akin to a wage for purposes of assigning the appropriate statute of limitations. (Murphy, supra, 40 Cal.4th at p. 1111.) The court therefore gave employees the benefit of the three-year statute of limitations. However, nothing in the Murphy opinion suggests the court intended its decision to permit a prevailing employer-defendant in a section 226.7 action to recover attorney fees from the unsuccessful employee. To so find would undermine the Supreme Court‟s heavy reliance in its analysis on the principle that statutes governing working conditions must be liberally construed in favor of employees.

So, the court instead decided that section 218.5 permits employers to recover attorney's fees when wage claims are based on contractual wages, such as unpaid bonuses, rather than wages - such as meal period penalties- that are required by statute. I guess vacation pay disputes won't result in awards of attorneys' fees either now?
 
Sorry - but if Murphy held that meal periods are subject to the limitations period applicable to wages not penalties, then Murphy said that meal and break penalties are wages. Since 218.5 applies to "wages" and not just "contractual-based wages" the court giveth something to the statute, and taketh away from employers.
 
The case is United Parcel Services Wage and Hour Cases, and the opinion is here.

Court of Appeal: Union Representing County Employees Entitled to Contact Information of Non-Union Members

To facilitate union organizing and collective bargaining, the union representing LA county employees wanted the county to disclose the names and addresses of employees who opted not to be represented by the union. These employees paid an "agency" fee, lower than union dues, but were not full fledged members.

Reviewing the case, the court of appeal decided that the county must disclose the information, but first must give the employees the right to "opt out" of the disclosure, similar to the law that applies in class action discovery:

Pioneer Electronics because there is no underlying presumption these non-member County employees would want their personal information disclosed, as might be the case in class-action litigation in which the disclosure might lead to affirmative relief or the vindication of statutory rights. Rather, the opposite is true. As in Valley Bank, employees would assume the personal information they provided to their employer as a condition of employment would not be further disseminated. While there may be a parallel between union representation and class representation, we cannot assume these non-member County employees would perceive a benefit to having their personal information disclosed to the Union. These County employees, whether by inaction or action, are not Union members, and they have a right not to join the Union. The non-members‟ failure to voluntarily provide their personal information to the Union might indicate their desire not to join the Union, indifference, or simply a desire not to be bothered at home by unwanted mail and telephone calls.

we hold non-member County employees are entitled to notice and an opportunity to object to the disclosure of their personal information. The privacy concerns here are more significant than in

The court rejected the union's argument it was entitled to the information regardless of the employees' objection.

The case is County of LA v. LA County Employee Relations Commission and the opinion is here.

Court of Appeal: Reporting Time Pay and Discharge

The Court of Appeal addressed California's "reporting time" pay requirement in the context of discharge. 
First it explained "reporting time" pay in the Wage Orders.

Section 5(A) of Wage Order Number 5-2001 states: “Each workday an employee is required to report for work and does report, but is not put to work or is furnished less than half said employee‟s usual or scheduled day‟s work, the employee shall be paid for half the usual or scheduled day‟s work, but in no event for less than two (2) hours nor more than four (4) hours, at the employee‟s regular rate of pay, which shall not be less than the minimum wage.” (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 11050, subd. 5(A).)

The employee was called in for an unscheduled day to be fired. The company paid the employee 2 hours, but the employee wanted four hours' pay.  The Court of Appeal held that only two hours of reporting time pay was due.  In explaining why, the court will help employers in the case of meetings that are scheduled on employees' days off.

If an employee is required to work, reports to work, and is not put to work or does not work half of the employees‟ usual or scheduled day‟s work, the employee is paid a half-shift reporting wage not to exceed four hours. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 11050, subd. 5(A).) If an employee is not scheduled to work or does not expect to work his usual shift, but must report to work for a meeting, the employee falls into the regulatory category of those employees called to work on their day off for a scheduled meeting. Price was entitled to the minimum payment, which is what he received.10

* * *

We do not agree with Price that he is entitled to receive more than the two-hour minimum; he did not report to work with the expectation that he would work a scheduled shift, but rather was scheduled to attend a meeting for an unspecified number of hours. Nor do we agree with Price that the term "usual" in the statute means the average of his previously scheduled days‟ worked during his employment at Starbucks. Rather, the term "usual" refers to the employee‟s expectation of the hours in the customary workday, just as, in the alternative, a scheduled work day formalizes the expectation of the hours worked. During his employment, Price's expectations of hours worked was solely based upon his scheduled hours. Price was not scheduled to work on November 16, and his expectation was he had been called to work for a meeting on his day off. He did not lose any pay because of a scheduling error. He was paid for reporting to the meeting consistent with the reporting time pay regulation.

This case also is very good because it, once again, says you have to have an actual injury to recover on a wage statement claim.  No injury, no money.  And a missing piece of information is not an injury.

The case is Price v. Starbucks Corp. and the opinion is here.

Court of Appeal: Up to 2 Meal / Rest Period Penalties Per Day

The Court of Appeal in UPS v. Superior Court decided that when an employee claims to have been denied both meal AND rest periods in a single day, s/he may recover two of the one-hour penalties made available under Labor Code Section 227.6.  So, one penalty is available for however many meal periods are denied in a day, and a separate penalty is available for however many rest periods are denied.
The case is UPS v. Superior Court and the opinion is here.

Court of Appeal Upholds the Denial of Meal Period Class Action

While the world waits for the California Supreme Court to issue the fabled Brinker decision on meal periods, the courts of appeal continue to find that employers need only make available meal periods, and not force them. 

The latest opinion involves a class action over meal and rest breaks and wage statements. The trial court found that the company took great measures to provide meal breaks and that, therefore, it would be impossible to have a class claim over denial of same. The court also held that wage statement claims require proof of actual injury, which is another subject that the California Supreme Court is considering.

I don't see anything new here for HR to be concerned with. There is a heady discussion of when courts can rely on precedent that is subsequently "de-published," but that's only good for procedure geeks like moi.

This opinion is in Tien v. Tenet Healthcare and it is available here.

Ninth Circuit: Pharmaceutical Sales Representatives are Exempt under FLSA

The plaintiffs in Christopher v. SmithKline Beecham Corp. were pharmaceutical sales representatives. They visit doctors on behalf of the company and attempt to persuade the doctors to prescribe their particular drugs to patients.  The company argued that these employees were exempt as "outside sales." The employees argued they were not sales persons, primarily because the patients themselves were the buyers, not the doctors.

The Ninth Circuit disagreed, holding that pharmaceutical sales reps obtain "sales" by convincing a doctor to agree to prescribe the product (a non-binding commitment).

The case is interesting for two reasons. First, the court explains what kinds of activities the outside sales exemption covers, and there is not much case law on this in the Ninth Circuit. In particular, there is a lengthy discussion about the difference between "selling" and "promoting."  The former is exempt and the latter is not. Second, the court refused to follow the US Department of Labor's current position on the exemption, which carried the day in another case in the Second Circuit.  In re Novartis Wage & Hour Litig., 611 F.3d 141 (2d Cir. 2010).

California law should follow the FLSA outside sales exemption. So this case may be helpful in California cases as well.  But, as the Novartis case shows, the US DOL and some courts do not agree that pharmaceutical salespersons are exempt, so keep that in mind.

The case is Christopher v. SmithKline Beecham and the opinion is here.

Medical Pot at Work - It's Back!

The California state senate apparently is taking up another attempt to stop "discrimination" against the stoned at work.  (Yes, there are some exceptions, e.g., they can't be too stoned - impaired - or work at a safety sensitive job). Just read the bill....The text of SB 129 is here.

Like the failed Prop 19, which the voters rejected last year, this bill is too vague and makes it harder for employers to fire people who come to work buzzed than it is to fire people who come to work drunk.  There, I said it.  Unlike Prop. 19, this bill allegedly applies only to "medical marijuana" users, not recreational users.

For the record, I have nothing against pot, medical marijuana, caring cannabis, or wacky weed.  I don't care if pot is legal or illegal.  But I care if people are stoned when making my dinner, caring for my relative in the hospital, fixing my car, or doing my books, etc. The new bill is too solicitous of pot smokers.  Sorry to harsh your mellow.


DGV

Follow us on Twitter.

And that's an order. Ok, not really.  Anyway, I'm not sure why an employment lawyer needs to be on Twitter.  I guess it's a way for me to "blog" in fewer than 200 characters, without the guilt. Or the grammar.  And then there's the really significant reason. It justifies an iPad 2.0 when it comes out. One cannot tweet effectively without a sleek, shiny Apple product.

Anyway, I'm going to try to tweet about employment law-related articles, announcements by other tweeting employment law-related government agencies, new cases, etc.  And of course I'll "retweet" everything by Justin Bieber, whoever he is.  Who says I'm old and out of touch?  Oh. Right. I do.

We'll still blog about more in-depth analyses of employment law cases, too.  So, please do not despair if you're not part of the twittering horde. 

But if you ARE in our super cool club of twittering employment law-lovers, please follow us on Twitter and do your bit to make us the 3,000,000th most popular member.  OK, it's a stretch goal.  You can sign up here: 

Greg

Court of Appeal: Sexual Harassment Claim Untimely

You have to file an administrative charge with the Department of Fair Employment and Housing within a year of the last act about which you claim is harassment, discrimination, or retaliation. So, when Irene Trovato testified at her deposition that the last time Michael Allyn harassed or retaliated against her was January 31, 2007, the charge she filed on May 8, 2008, was untimely.

In opposition to her employer's and Allyn's summary judgment motion, she submitted a declaration under penalty of perjury in which she said that the harassment continued until she left her employment in May 2007 (which would have rendered her charge timely fled). But, she contradicted her clear deposition testimony, which you cannot do.
Then, Trovato claimed the "continuing violation doctrine," which has gutted the statute of limitations in these types of cases, rendered her claim timely.  But the court of appeal said the doctrine did not apply:

 The case is Trovato v. Becton Coulter, Inc. and the opinion is here.

Trovato also argues that she still reported to Allyn after January 31, 2007, until she resigned in May 2007, and that this assignment alone—without any other evidence—was sufficient to constitute harassment or retaliation. There is no authority for this argument, and its acceptance would extend the statute of limitations indefinitely.

The conclusory statements in Trovato’s declaration are not sufficient to raise a triable issue of material fact on the statute of limitations issue, and she cannot defeat the grant of summary judgment by contradicting her sworn deposition testimony on material points in a later-filed declaration. (Shin v. Ahn (2007) 42 Cal.4th 482, 500, fn. 12; D’Amico v. Board of Medical Examiners (1974) 11 Cal.3d 1, 22; Whitmire v. Ingersoll-Rand Co. (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 1078, 1087.)

California Court Again Holds California Pro-Picketing Law is Unconstitutional

The Third District Court of Appeal previously held that California's statutes prohibiting courts from enjoining most union picketing are unconstitutional. See my earlier post here.  The California Supreme Court granted review in that case.

Now the Fifth District Court of Appeal has held the same thing, and involving the same employer, Ralphs Grocery, albeit at a different location.  Money quote:

Laws which prohibit speech based on its content — or, in this case, based on the failure of the speech to address a "labor dispute" — are presumptively invalid. (Simon & Shuster, Inc. v. Members of N.Y. State Crime Victims Bd. (1991) 502 U.S. 105, 116.) Such laws are permitted only if they serve a compelling state interest and are narrowly drawn to accomplish that interest. (Mosley, supra, 408 U.S. 92, 95.) The desire to provide the broadest forum for expression in labor disputes is not a compelling state interest. (Carey v. Brown, supra, 447 U.S. 455, 466.)
We conclude the state may not act to selectively create a free speech right applicable only to the few, while excluding all others, in the absence of a compelling state interest. As a result, we hold that the Moscone Act and Labor Code section 1138.1 contravene the free speech provisions of California Constitution article I, section 2, by discriminatorily conferring speech rights on some, but not all, Californians without a compelling state interest.

Read this one quickly because the Supremes likely will take it up along with the earlier Ralphs case.
The case is Ralphs Grocery Co. v. UFCW Union Local 8 and the opinion is here.

Ninth Circuit: WARN Act Opinion

The WARN Act requires companies to give at least 60 days' notice of shutdowns and mass layoffs that affect a certain number of people.  For example, to be covered, a "mass layoff" must involve an "employment loss" for a group comprised of at least 50 employees who constitute at least 1/3  of the workforce. 

The thing is, the law and regulations contain a number of exceptions and special definitions regarding who is an employee, who counts as a layoff, etc. There are so many moving definitions and exceptions, it is impossible (or maybe just dumb) to give WARN advice "off the cuff."

One of the key definitions is "employment loss" because that's how you tell how many employees are affected by a layoff or shutdown.  If < 50 employees have suffered an "employment loss" then federal WARN is not triggered.

So, in Collins v. Gee West, the employer was looking for a buyer and gave less than 60 days' notice of a shutdown.  Collins and other sued for the WARN damages due for failure to give 60 days' notice.
But the Company's notice was that the shutdown would occur on October 7. By that date, all the employees had quit for other employment.  The Company argued that these employees voluntarily departed before the October 7 shutdown date. Having voluntarily departed, they did not suffer an employment loss.

The district court bought that argument and granted the employer's motion for summary judgment. On appeal, not so much. The Ninth Circuit held that when folks leave employment after being told the business is going to shut down, that is not a "voluntary departure" exception to the "employment loss" definition. As the court pointed out, if that were the case, then the only way to tell whether a WARN notice was due would be after the fact.  So, the employer must reasonably calculate how many employees are anticipated to be affected by the employer's layoff or shutdown decision. The fact that an employee does not wait to the last day to leave does not eliminate the requirement of counting that employee as part of the layoff.

I figured there would be a discussion of the defenses to inadequate notice like the "faltering company" exception. Maybe next time.

The case is Collins v. Gee West and the opinion is here.


.

Court of Appeal Upholds Wage Statement Penalties

So, several employees of Heritage Residential Care, Inc. "lacked social security numbers."  Naturally, the employer immediately fired them. 

No, silly, the employer re-classified them as independent contractors!   Because, after all, without social security numbers, the employer could not withhold taxes. And you have to withhold an employee's taxes.  But you don't have to withhold an independent contractors!  Brilliant! 

As you can imagine, since this has come to my attention over here, the employer's deft maneuver did not end well. Employees sued for penalties, among other things, because the employer did not provide adequate "wage statements" per Labor Code section 226. 

After losing before the Labor Commissioner, they sought review on whether the failure to issue compliant wage statements was "inadvertent."  If so, Section 226.3 permits the Labor Commissioner to take that into consideration in deciding whether to assess the penalties.

No sale. After a painstakingly thorough analysis of the meaning of "inadvertence," the court of appeal decided it simply means that it was unintentional.  Here, the employer intentionally chose to issue 1099 forms to these employees, because they lacked social security numbers. 

Therefore, employers who intentionally issue defective wage statements, or who skip issuing them on purpose, will not qualify for the statutory leniency built into Labor Code section 226.3. 

The case is Heritage Residential Care, Inc. v. DLSE and the opinion is here.

U.S. Supreme Court Recognizes Third-Party Retaliation Claims

Justice Scalia for a unanimous Supreme Court wrote that employees may claim retaliation when they are associated with someone ELSE who engaged in protected activity.  What?

Miriam Regalado was engaged to Eric Thompson. They both worked for North American Stainless.  So, Miriam filed a charge with the EEOC alleging sex discrimination. NAS fired Thompson three weeks later. 

Thompson then filed a retaliation charge. But Thompson did not actually engage in protected activity. Regalado was the one who filed with the EEOC. 

So, was it retaliation under Title VII to fire Thompson?  The Supreme Court said yes. Relying on the Court's expansive definition of retaliation set forth in Burlington N. & S. F. R. Co. v. White, 548 U. S. 53 (2006),the court said:

“the antiretaliation provision, unlike the substantive provision, is not limited to discriminatory actions that affect the terms and conditions of employment.” Id., at 64. Rather, Title VII’s antiretaliation provision prohibits any employer action that “well might havedissuaded a reasonable worker from making or supporting a charge of discrimination.” Id., at 68 (internal quotation marks omitted).

And of course, they found that firing a fiance "well might have dissuaded" the complainant from making or supporting a charge: NAS argued, where do you draw the line?  Trusted co-worker? Girlfriend? What third parties are close enough to the complainant.  The Court could not find any language in Title VII to support setting down a blanket rule.
 

We must also decline to identify a fixed class of relationships for which third-party reprisals are unlawful. We expect that firing a close family member will almost always meet the Burlington standard, and inflicting a milder reprisal on a mere acquaintance will almost never do so, but beyond that we are reluctant to generalize.

The court next decided that Thompson had standing to sue under Title VII because he was a "person aggrieved."  The Court knew it was opening a can of worms to let third parties sue. So, it limited Title VII standing to those covered by the "zone of interests" Title VII seeks to protect.  Thompson was an employee at the same company as his fiance, and, most importantly, according to the complaint, the company fired him for the purpose of hiring the fiance who filed the charge.
 
The case is Thompson v. North American Stainless Inc. and the opinion is here.
DGV

U.S. Supreme Court Upholds Background Check Questions

The U.S. Supreme Court ducked deciding whether the U.S. Constitution protects individuals' right to privacy in personal information.  Instead, they "assumed" that there was such a protection and then decided that NASA's background questions were constitutional no matter what.  This provoked a concurrence in the judgment only from Justice Scalia (and another, short one from Justice Thomas), as both of them wanted the court to decide the constitution contains no such right.

The employment law issue here is whether NASA's questions were appropriate issues to ask applicants and employees. Most federal government employees are subjected to a standard background check. But contract employees were only recently added, following the 9/11 attacks.  NASA employed a number of contract employees at its Jet Propulsion Lab, and had to implement the checks for current employees, some of whom were employed for many years.

The questions included standard background information, but then asked about drug use, sales, etc., and asked for explanations if the employee admitted to involvement with illegal drugs.  After the employee answered the questions, the agency sent out questionnaires to landlords and references on a standard form. That standard form contains a number of questions to which plaintiffs objected:

the form asks if the reference has "any reason to question" the employee’s "honesty or trustworthiness." Id., at 97. It also asks if the reference knows of any "adverse information" concerning the employ. If "yes" is checked for any of these categories, the form calls for an explanation in the space below. ... That space is also available for providing "additional information" ("derogatory" or "favorable") that may bear on "suitability for government employment or a security clearance." Ibid.

The Ninth Circuit held that the request for an explanation by the employee about drug treatment or counseling did not serve a legitimate interest sufficient to overcome the employee's privacy rights. The court of appeals also decided that the reference forms contained open ended questions that infringed on privacy rights without sufficient linkage to the job.

On review, the Supreme Court decided that these questions do not infringe upon privacy rights even if they were protected by the Constitution:

The questions challenged by respondents are part of a standard employment background check of thesort used by millions of private employers. See Brief for Consumer Data Indus. Assn. et al. as
*** [W]e conclude that the chal-lenged portions of both SF–85 and Form 42 consist of reasonable, employment-related inquiries that further the Government’s interests in managing its internal opera-tions. See Engquist, 553 U. S., at 598–599; Whalen, 429 U. S., at 597–598. As to SF–85, the only part of the formchallenged here is its request for information about “any treatment or counseling received” for illegal-drug use within the previous year. The “treatment or counseling”question, however, must be considered in context. It is a followup to SF–85’s inquiry into whether the employee has“used, possessed, supplied, or manufactured illegal drugs” during the past year. The Government has good reason toask employees about their recent illegal-drug use. Like any employer, the Government is entitled to have itsprojects staffed by reliable, law-abiding persons who will“‘efficiently and effectively’” discharge their duties. See Engquist, supra, at 598–599. Questions about illegal-drug use are a useful way of figuring out which persons havethese characteristics.Amici Curiae 2 (hereinafter CDIA Brief) ("[M]ore than 88% of U. S.companies . . . perform background checks on their employees"). The Government itself has been conducting employment investigations since the earliest days of the Republic.

The court's decision is important to private sector employers looking to justify personal questions and investigative consumer reports. The court recognized the legitimacy of these issues, including questions about drug use.  That should help private-sector and public employers with invasion of privacy claims related to drug testing and background investigations.

Of course the court did not deal with the issue of "adverse impact" discrimination claims here. But the defense to adverse impact is "job related and consistent with business necessity." Language in this opinion should help estasblish this defense.

The opinion is NASA v. Nelson and it is here.
 DGV

Ninth Circuit Pretty Much Kills Most Attorneys' Fees Awards to Employers

In a case where the court readily acknowledged that the plaintiff's claims were frivolous, the court invented a whole new standard for awarding attorney's fees.  The fees statute says the "prevailing party" is entitled to "reasonable attorney's fees."  Then the courts said that employers can recover fees only if the plaintiff's claims are frivolous. 

In this case, Harris v. Maricopa County Superior Court, the court of appeals decided if the plaintiff asserts multiple claims, the defendant can recover fees only on the amount of time spent exclusively on frivolous claims.  So, let's say  the defense counsel spends time that overlaps on frivolous and non-frivolous claims - the attorneys' fees cannot be recovered at all.

In essence, they might as well have said, "if there are multiple claims, unless they are all 100% frivolous, the defendant shouldn't even bother trying for attorney's fees."  Instead, the court hides its true intention by setting a new standard ensuring it's impossible to recover fees, without really saying so. Judge Stephen Reinhardt, who has never met a plaintiff he didn't like, laughed at employers like this:

Although the court may not have erred in determining that the claim was frivolous, it nonetheless erred in awarding substantial fees to defendants on this claim. Almost every time entry in defendants’ fee petition for work related to the hostile work environment claim was also listed as related to some or all of Harris’s nonfrivolous discrimination claims. As we have already explained, in a civil rights action with multiple claims, only some of which are groundless, a defendant is entitled only to those fees attributable exclusively to defending against plaintiff’s frivolous claims. If the work is performed in whole or in part in connection with defending against any of plaintiff’s claims for which fees may not be awarded, such work may not be included in calculating a fee award. Accordingly, the fees properly attributable to this claim, if any, would be quite minimal.

The court's rationale is that the law is "solicitous" of plaintiffs' complaints in civil rights cases.  The court more accurately is "solicitous" of bad faith lawsuits with no chance of succeeding.  It is not mutually exclusive to allow plaintiffs with bona fide claims to have a day in court, while still enforcing some minimal standards.  If a case is frivolous, that means it never should have been brought. It is only fair to defray some of the employers' costs in defending against a lawsuit that never should have been filed in the first place.

Oh, I'm not the only one who smacked his forehead after reading the opinion in this case. There was a dissent that pretty much calls bull on the majority.  Perhaps the full en banc court will take up this issue.

The opinion is Harris v. Maricopa County Superior Court and the opinion is here.

DGV

Court of Appeal: No Attorney-Client Privilege for Employee's Emails to Lawyer

Gina Holmes worked for Petrovich Development Co. LLC as assistant to the CEO, Paul Petrovich.  She was pregnant early in her employment and got into a discussion with her boss about the length of her leave and their respective feelings about her pregnancy. Although it appeared that they had cleared the air, Holmes simultaneously attempted to hire a lawyer, via email at work. Apparently, Holmes became upset that Petrovich forwarded her emails to others in the organization and quit, claiming constructive discharge, discrimination, harassment, etc.

The trial court summarily dismissed the harassment, discrimination and retaliation claims. The court of appeal affirmed - holding that the harassment evidence was limited to email correspondence that was neither severe nor pervasive.

The court of appeal also affirmed dismissal of the claim that Holmes was forced to resign. The court noted that when a plaintiff cannot establish a hostile work environment, a constructive discharge claim is a higher standard and must also fail.  Holmes' retaliation claim failed too, because of the lack of an adverse action.

That left claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress and invasion of privacy, which were tried to a jury. The jury found for the defendants. On appeal, Holmes claimed the trial court should not have allowed Petrovich to use the emails she sent to a lawyer seeking a referral, in which she explained her situation.  The trial court held that Holmes waived the privilege because she used company email, and there were clear policies explaining the company's right to monitor email.

The court of appeal agreed that Holmes waived the privilege Here is the money quote:

Although a communication between persons in an attorney-client relationship "does not lose its privileged character for the sole reason that it is communicated by electronic means or because persons involved in the delivery, facilitation, or storage of electronic communication may have access to the content of the communication" (§ 917, subd. (b)), this does not mean that an electronic communication is privileged (1) when the electronic means used belongs to the defendant; (2) the defendant has advised the plaintiff that communications using electronic means are not private, may be monitored, and may be used only for business purposes; and (3) the plaintiff is aware of and agrees to these conditions. A communication under these circumstances is not a “„confidential communication between client and lawyer‟” within the meaning of section 952 because it is not transmitted “by a means which, so far as the client is aware, discloses the information to no third persons other than those who are present to further the interest of the client in the consultation . . . .” (Ibid.)


When Holmes e-mailed her attorney, she did not use her home computer to which some unknown persons involved in the delivery, facilitation, or storage may have access. Had she done so, that would have been a privileged communication unless Holmes allowed others to have access to her e-mails and disclosed their content. Instead, she used defendants‟ computer, after being expressly advised this was a means that was not private and was accessible by Petrovich, the very person about whom Holmes contacted her lawyer and whom Holmes sued. This is akin to consulting her attorney in one of defendants‟ conference rooms, in a loud voice, with the door open, yet unreasonably expecting that the conversation overheard by Petrovich would be privileged.

Lawyers for employees obviously should take note and advise employees not to use monitored email systems. Employers should ensure their email policies are comprehensive and clear regarding employees' expectations of privacy.

The case is Holmes v. Petrovich Development Company LLC and the opinion is here.