The California Supreme Court
decided several significant employment law cases since our last summary.
The Court’s opinions address a number of topics, from sexual harassment
to wage and hour violations, and include decisions applicable to public
and private sector employers. Several important employment law cases remain
on the Supreme Court’s docket. We summarize below the recently decided
cases and those that remain pending.
CASES DECIDED:
Carter v. California
Dept. of Veterans Affairs, 38 Cal.4th 914 (2006)
Carter was a nurse at a California veterans’ home. She claimed the
California Department of Veterans Affairs failed to take sufficient action
to end alleged sexual harassment by a resident. The trial court held the
employer could be liable for third-party harassment under the Fair Employment
and Housing Act (“FEHA”), based on amendments to the law passed
after the conduct occurred. The Court of Appeal reversed, holding that
the amendments could not be applied “retroactively.” The Supreme
Court unanimously disagreed with the Court of Appeal, remanding the case
because the amendments merely “clarified” the law existing
when the alleged harassment took place. Clarifications to existing laws
are applied “retroactively”; new statutes typically are not.
Lyle v. Warner Brothers
Television Productions, 38 Cal.4th 264 (2006)
Lyle was a writers’ assistant
who was assigned to work on the television show, “Friends.”
Working with the show’s writers, Lyle was exposed to various rude,
crude, and overtly sexual jokes, comments, and the like. Lyle claimed
a “hostile work environment” based on her female sex under
the FHEA. The Supreme Court upheld the trial court’s granting summary
judgment in favor of the defendants. The Court discussed the standard
for hostile environment claims and held that Lyle had not adduced evidence
demonstrating a triable issue of fact. The Court clarified that merely
offensive, coarse, or vulgar language does not in and of itself create
liability.
Reynolds v. Bement,
36 Cal. 4th 1075 (2005)
The Court held that individual
corporate employees/managers/officers cannot be held personally liable
as “employers” for unpaid wages. That does not mean, however,
such individuals could not be held liable for other wage-hour violations.
Smith v. Superior
Court (L’Oreal USA, Inc.), ___ Cal.4th ____ (2006)
Smith was employed for a single
assignment lasting one work day. The California Labor Code requires employers
to pay employees on the date employment is separated for any reason. However,
L’Oreal, the employer, did not pay Smith on the day she started
and ended her assignment, but rather waited several weeks. L’Oreal
argued the wage payment statute does not apply to an employee hired for
a one-day assignment. The Supreme Court analyzed the statute and held
that pursuant to the statute, Smith should have been paid on the date
of her assignment. This ruling may cause significant administrative problems
for employers who hire short-term workers.
Stephens v. County
of Tulare, ___ Cal.4th ____ (2006)
The definition of termination
came up again in the Stephens case. Stephens, a county employee, was assigned
“light duty” work after sustaining injury to a thumb. When
he experience pain and complained, his supervisor placed him on a leave
of absence. Stephens claimed the involuntary leave was tantamount to termination
of his employment, thereby entitling him to certain benefits under Government
Code section 31725. The Supreme Court decided that the supervisor’s
decision to place Stephens on a leave until he was able to work was not
a termination, and therefore section 31725 did not apply.
Yanowitz v. L’Oreal
USA, Inc., 36 Cal. 4th 1028 (2005)
Yanowitz was a sales manager
who refused to fire an employee who was not sufficiently “hot”
for L’Oreal’s management. After the refusal, Yanowitz’s
superiors criticized her and gave negative appraisals of her performance.
The Supreme Court’s ruling addressed several open issues in FEHA
retaliation cases. First, the Court defined an “adverse employment
action,” one of the elements of any retaliation claim. The Court
held that an adverse action can be anything that materially affects the
terms and conditions of employment. The Court also decided that adverse
actions can be the result of a series of actions over time, and that the
“continuing violation” doctrine can suspend the applicable
statute of limitations. The Court further ruled that even though Yanowitz
had not stated why she protested terminating the employee at issue, the
employer had sufficient notice that Yanowitz was engaging in protected
activity to satisfy the elements of a retaliation claim.
PENDING CASES:
The
California Supreme Court has a number of employment law cases pending. These
include:
- Dore v. Arnold Worldwide,
Inc. (whether an employer preserved its “at will” employment
relationship by saying that employment could be terminated “at
any time.”);
- Gentry v. Superior Court
(Circuit City Stores, Inc.) (whether an arbitration agreement prohibiting
class actions is enforceable or unconscionable);
- Green v. California
(whether an employer must prove in a disability discrimination case
under the FEHA that an employee cannot perform his or her essential
job functions with or without accommodation);
- Murphy v. Kenneth Cole
Prods. (whether statutory remedies for meal period law violations
are penalties or wages, thereby affecting the statute of limitations
for such claims);
- Gattuso v. Harte-Hanks
Shoppers, Inc. (whether employers are permitted to pay
additional wages rather than reimburse employees for expenses under
California. Labor Code section 2802);
- Lonicki v. Sutter Health
(whether an employee able to perform a similar job for another employer
may take protected medical leave under the California Family Rights
Act); and
- Ross v. RagingWire Telecommunications,
Inc. (whether the FEHA requires accommodation of medical marijuana
use).
Conclusion
The California Supreme Court
continues to shape California employment laws. The lower California courts,
Legislature, and agencies also contribute to keeping employment law practitioners
on their toes. Employers should ensure their counsel stay current on California
law developments.