Recent California Appellate Opinions in Sexual Harassment and Employment Law

Check here frequently for new sexual harassment and employment law appellate decisions.  Note: Viewing the opinions below requires Adobe Reader or Adobe Acrobat.  Click here for a free copy of Adobe Reader or visit Adobe.com. Attorneys: If you have an opinion you feel should be included on this page, please contact us.

Anti-SLAPP, Defamation and Related Employment Issues

Integrated Healthcare Holdings, Inc. v. Fitzgibbons - Trial court's denial of Defendant's Anti-SLAPP motion is reversible error where defendant contended an e-mail message he sent questioning the financial condition of plaintiff concerned a matter of public interest under section 425.16, subdivision (e)(4), and that plaintiff failed to demonstrate a probability of prevailing on the merits of its claims for defamation, breach of contract, tortious interference, and violations of Business and Professions Code section 17200 et seq.

Aral v. Earthlink, Inc. - Arbitration agreement is unconscionable and unenforceable when it attempts to force California consumers with minor monetary claims to arbitrate in Georgia and prevents them from bringing class actions.

Circuit City v. Mantor - Trial court's granting of employer's "renewed" petition to compel arbitration is reversed where second petition is based on claim that the decision in Luce Forward constituted intervening law which should change result.

Gatton v. T-Mobile - Even when only a minimal degree of procedural unconscionability is demonstrated, where a high degree of substantive unconscionability exists (i.e., a class action waiver) arbitration provision is unconscionable and unenforceable.

Gentry v. Superior Court (Circuity City) superseded by California Supreme Court Opinion issued August 30, 2007 - Where class arbitration would be a significantly more effective way of vindicating the rights of affected employees than individual arbitration, class action waiver is unenforceable; Also, a finding of procedural unconscionability is not required to invalidate a class arbitration waiver if that waiver implicates unwaivable statutory rights. But such a finding is a prerequisite to determining that the arbitration agreement as a whole is unconscionable.

Higgins v. Superior Court (Disney/ABC) - Five siblings who appeared in TV show “Extreme Makeover: Home Edition,” were correct in their assertion that arbitration agreement they were signed before appearing on show was unconscionable and unenforceable, where clause was not conspicuous, in smaller type than rest of the agreement, limited their remedies, and no evidence was presented that the clause was ever explained to the siblings.

Martinez v. Master Protection - Arbitration agreement is procedurally and substantively unconscionable, permeated with illegality, and unenforceable. Trial court's appointment of arbitrator after arbitral tribunal refused to proceed with arbitration was also an abuse of discretion.

Matthau v. Superior Court (William Morris Agency) - Trial court erred in granting talent agency's petition to compel arbitration where neither of the opposing parties were parties to any of the arbitration agreements under which the talent agency sought arbitration, and none of the legal principles under which a nonsignatory may be bound to another’s agreement to arbitrate applies.

Metters v. Ralphs Grocery Company - Ralphs Grcoery Company fails to meet its burden on a motion to compel arbitration against its employee, by failing to prove an agreement to arbitrate.

Mitri v. Arnel Management Company - Where a defendant fails to prove existence of signed arbitration agreement, defendant's motion to compel arbitration is properly denied and defendant's argument in support thereof is "wholly without factual support or legal merit."

Murphy v. Check N' Go - In California, trial court, and not arbitrator, properly decides a motion to compel arbitration; trial court's order denying motion to compel arbitration in a wage and hour case was proper where alleged agreement was unconscionable, based on, among other things, presence of class action waiver. 1/29/08 Order modifying original decision in Murphy v. Check N' Go.

Nyulassy v. Lockheed Martin - Holding in Armendariz properly extends to post-dispute arbitration agreements made with employees, and arbitration agreement was properly found to be unconscionable even where employees attorney reviewed agreement before it was signed by employee.

 

Whaley v. Sony - Trial court did not misapply the law in denying a motion to compel arbitration pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1281.2, subdivision (c) because of the presence in the suit of non-parties to the arbitration agreement.

Harman v. City and County of San Francisco - Trial judge did not abuse discretion in refusing to reduce plaintiff's attorney fee award despite the award's claimed lack of proportion to the monetary recovery and the claimed lack of success as to some of plaintiff's claims, but court should not have awarded fees for prior unsuccessful appeal on attorney fee issue.

Horsford v. California State University Fresno - Trial court abused its discretion in deciding amount of attorney fees award to prevailing plaintiff's counsel in a FEHA action by: 1) failing to use counsels’ time records as the starting point for its lodestar determination; 2) failing to adequately to consider the propriety of a higher hourly rate for plaintiff's counsel, a San Francisco attorney, in order to accomplish the purposes of FEHA; 3) failing to consider the relevant factors for awarding an enhancement multiplier; and 4) in requiring plaintiffs’ counsel to look to their clients, under a contingency fee agreement, to make up for any undercompensation arising from the court’s statutory fee award.

Engle v. Copenbarger - Attorney Fees Under FEHA recoverable after defendant's acceptance of a CCP section 998 offer to compromise which is silent as to fees.

Wysinger v. Automobile Club of Southern California - Trial court is not required to apportion attorney fees under FEHA between successful and unsuccessful claims.

DFEH - Right to Sue

Blum v. Superior Court (Copley Press)

Disability Discrimination, Harassment, Interactive Process, and Duty to Accommodate (Medical Condition) - FEHA

Gelfo v. Lockheed Martin Corporation

Lazan v. County of Riverside

Wysinger v. Automobile Club of Southern California - In FEHA disability case, jury may properly find: 1) employer liability for failure to engage in interactive process; and 2) no liability for failure to accommodate disability; such result is not impermissibly"inconsistent."

Duty to Accommodate Injured Worker (Medical Condition/Disability)

Raine v. City of Burbank

FEHA Exhaustion Requirement

McDonald v. AVCC

Mokler v. County of Orange - County's failure to raise administrative exhaustion defense prior to trial waives the defense.

Fraud in the Inducement of Employment

Noble v. Draper - Judgment against employee must be because claim alleging fraudulent inducement to enter employment, is not precluded by
their prior pursuit of wage claims in an administrative forum before the Labor Commissioner pursuant to Labor Code section 98 et seq.

Judicial Disqualification

Christie v. El Centro

Bearden v. U.S. Borax

Eicher v. ABI

Huntington Memorial Hospital v. Superior Court

JHK Enterprises v. Dept. of Industrial Relations

Singh v. Superior Court

Tien v. Tenet Healthcare Corporation

Pregnancy Harassment

Kelly v. Stamps.com

Privacy Rights and Discovery Issues

Puerto v. Superior Court (Wild Oats) - People have a right of privacy as to their address and phone numbers; However, trial court's requirement that witnesses sign an "opt-in" form before allowing to plaintiff's counsel access to addresses and telephone numbers of potential witnesses was improper; trial court is ordered to compel defendant to produce the information to plaintiff's counsel.

Punitive Damages

Johnson v. Ford Motor Company, Inc. (now superseded by the Supreme Court decision in Johnson v. Ford Motor Company)

Bullock v. Phillip Morris, USA (opinion after remand from the California Supreme Court following the decision in Williams v. Phillip Morris; Vacates original opinion affirming a punitive damages ratio of 33-to-1 as stated in Bullock v. Phillip Morris, USA) - Plaintiff demonstrated entitlement to punitive damages based on clear and convincing conduct of eprehensible conduct, but trial court erred in refusing defendant's jury instruction that while jury could consider harm to others in determining reprehenisbility, it could not consider harm to others in setting the amount of the award necessary to punish defendant.

Wysinger v. Automobile Club of Southern California - In FEHA disability case, $1 million punitive damages award not disproportionate to $280,000 compensatory award.

Retaliation

Pinero v. Specialty Restaurants Corporation

Taylor v. City of Los Angeles - Supervisor may face personal liability for FEHA's anti-retaliation provision where employee protests discrimination against a co-worker and is subsequently retaliated against by the supervisor.

Racial Discrimination and Harassment

Butler v. VONS Companies

Hammond v. County of Los Angeles - Trial court improperly granted summary judgment on race claims under FEHA based on showing that retaliation may have continued more than one year before complaint was filed. Now superseded by Hammond v. County of Los Angeles - opinion after rehearing.

Rape - Inadequate Security

Ambriz v. Kelegian

Sexual Discrimination

Angelucci v. Century Supper Club (Unruh Act)

Sexual Harassment

Ahmadi-Kashani v. UC Regents - Before filing sexual harassment lawsuit under FEHA, employee plaintiff was not required to complete internal grievance process set forth in a collective bargaining agreement entered into between the University and her union.

Bradley v. California Department of Corrections - Temporary worker (nurse) was an "employee" entitled to protection under FEHA; employer had a duty to act immediately to stop the sexual harassment directed at Bradley by a coworker and to ensure that no further harassment occurred. Referring the matter to a lengthy and complicated investigative process alone is insufficient to comply with the protections mandated by the FEHA when continued contact with the harasser leads to further harassment.

Dukes v. Walmart, et al - District Court did not abuse discretion in certifying class action suit against Wal-Mart alleging sexual discrimination under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

Gober, Finton v. Ralphs Grocery Company

Hope v. California Youth Authority

Weeks v. Baker & McKenzie

Myers v. Trendwest Resorts

Singleton v. United States Gypsum

Wellpoint v. Superior Court (McCombs)

Sexual Orientation Harassment, Discrimination and Retailiation

Jones v. The Lodge at Torrey Pines

Order Modifying

Order Granting Review on Limited Issue of Personal Liability for Retaliation under FEHA (see page 2)

California Supreme Court Opinion in Jones v. The Lodge at Torrey Pines - No personal liability for superiosors who retaliate against employees under FEHA (supersedes Court of Appeal's Opinion)

Statutory Household Employees & Contractors (Labor Code section 2750.5.)

Flores v. Nelson

Unruh Act

Stamps v. Superior Court

Wrongful Termination

Casella v. SouthWest Dealer Services - Wrongful termination claim is properly tethered to violation of Penal Code section 487 (theft by fraudulent misrepresentation); thus trial court properly refused to grant defendant's motion to dismiss.

Franklin v. Monadnock Company

King v. U.P.S. (ordered published 6/22/07)

Law Offices of Jason L. Oliver

128 N. Fair Oaks Avenue, Suite 107

Pasadena, California 91103

(626) 797-2777

If you need an attorney or simply want to consult with a lawyer regarding an employment related case of sexual harassment, discrimination, or wrongful termination, please call

Jason Oliver at (626) 797-2777 for a free legal consultation.

Jason L. Oliver

Los Angeles Sexual Harassment Attorneys

Last Updated: March 2008

Disclaimer Notice: This page is offered as a public service and  http://www.sexharassmentattorneys.com makes no statements or representations of fact, opinion, or otherwise as to the contents, accuracy or truthfulness of any news link or statements made at any linked websites.  Use of this site constitutes your agreement that such viewing is expressly conditioned upon the understanding that this web site is for general informational purposes only, that the information contained at this site does not constitute legal advice, and that the viewing of information contained herein or sending of an e-mail through this site does not create a attorney client relationship, but merely an invitation for a lawyer to contact you.  You are advised to immediately seek independent counsel for advice regarding any legal concerns.