Monday, February 17, 2014
Christman, Kelley & Clarke - Expert Witness Fees Are Available Under California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA)
The California Court of Appeal Chips Away at the U.S. Supreme Court’s Decision in AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, et ux.
- “[t]his Arbitration Policy applies to any and all employment-related disputes that exist or arise between Employees and Ralphs … that would constitute cognizable claims or causes of action in a federal, state or local court or agency under applicable federal, state or local laws (referred to in this Arbitration Policy as ‘Covered Disputes’).”
- “[t]here is no right or authority for any Covered Disputes to be heard or arbitrated on a class action basis, as a private attorney general, or on bases involving claims or disputes brought in a representative capacity on behalf of the general public, of other Ralphs [Grocery Company] employees (or any of them), or of other persons alleged to be similarly situated. . . . [T]here are no judge or jury trials and there are no class actions or Representative Actions permitted under this Arbitration Policy.”
Tuesday, January 21, 2014
Causation in Wrongful Termination Cases - "Substantial Motivating Factor/Reason"
Christman, Kelley & Clarke, PC
January 14, 2014: Another trial court has run afoul of the proper legal standard for causation in wrongful termination cases. In MENDOZA v. WESTERN MEDICAL CENTER SANTA ANA, the plaintiff/employee claimed his report of sexual harassment caused defendant/employer to fire him. He alleged that defendants retaliated against Mendoza for accusing his superior of sexual harassment. Defendants, on the other hand, claimed that Mendoza willingly participated in sexual misconduct on the job as their motivation for firing Mendoza.
Defendants claimed Mendoza’s report only “caused” his firing by bringing his misconduct to his employer's attention. Defendants concede it is against public policy to fire employees because they report actual sexual harassment. The Defendant argued that it is not against public policy for employers to fire
employees after the employer determines in good faith that the employee actually participated in sexual misconduct on the job.
The main issue on appeal was the jury instruction on causation. First, the instruction read: "That Romeo Mendoza’s report of sexual harassment by Del Erdmann was the motivating reason for Romeo Mendoza’s discharge.” (bold/underlining added.)
This instruction modified the 2012 version of CACI No. 2430 by substituting "the motivating reason” rather than “a motivating reason”).
The special verdict form submitted to the jury was even worse for the employee: “Was Romeo Mendoza’s report of sexual harassment by Del Erdman the reason for [defendants’] decision to discharge Romeo Mendoza.” (Italics added.)
This also changed the CACI verdict form from “a motivating reason” to “the motivating reason” or “the reason”. The jury would be left with the idea that the plaintiff's burden could only be satisfied if there were only one reason motivating the decision to fire Mendoza.
The jury submitted a question on this very topic. The trial court clarified: "Pursuant to the Jury Instruction . . . , the plaintiff must prove that his
report of Sexual Harassment was a motivating reason for his discharge." This was based on the 2012 version of the CACI forms.
The language of CACI 2430, Effective on June 2013, provides: “That [wrongful conduct inserted] was a substantial motivating reason for [name of plaintiff]’s discharge.” The corresponding special verdict form also inserted updated language (“a substantial motivating reason”). (CACI No. VF-2406.) This is the language approved by the California Supreme Court in Harris v. City of
Santa Monica (2013) 56 Cal.4th 203.
Read the opinion here: http://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/G047394.PDF
Saturday, January 11, 2014
Christman, Kelley & Clarke settles sexual harassment lawsuit brought against well-known commercial cleaning franchisee
Christman, Kelley & Clarke Wins Reinstatement for County of Santa Barbara Employee
Contact us here with questions or comments.
Christman, Kelley & Clarke Wins Sexual Harassment Trial Against a 7-Eleven franchisee
7-Eleven, the franchisor, settled before the trial started.
Christman, Kelley & Clarke - discussion about Texas employment law
What you should do when faced with workplace harassment or discrimination
Christman, Kelley & Clarke recommends that an employee who is faced with harassment or discrimination do the following:
1. Tell the person to stop, both verbally and in writing. It is always very important to have evidence of your communications with your employer.
2. Review the company personnel policy manual if one exists. This will tell you how the company wants you to deal with complaints. You should follow the procedure and any time limits set out in that policy. If your company has designated certain staff to receive sexual harassment complaints, that is where you should bring your complaint.
3. If your company has no procedure, speak with your immediate supervisor about the harassment. If your supervisor has been harassing you, make your complaint to the supervisor's superior.
4. Make sure that management knows of the harassment.
5. Document your complaints. You should note the date and time, the name and title of the person to whom the complaint was made and the response.
6. If the harassment or discrimination continues, you should seek the advice of competent employment lawyers such as Christman Kelley & Clarke.
Send us an email if you have any questions or concerns: matt@christmankelley.com
The latest California case on constructive termination - forcing an employee to use his vehicle? Not so fast.
http://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/B245735.PDF