Justia California Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

For more than two decades, San Benito County provided health insurance benefits for its employees under the Public Employees’ Medical Hospital Care Act (PEMHCA), which requires a participating county to pay retiree health insurance benefits at the same contribution rate it pays to active employees. In 2017, the county ceased providing benefits under PEMHCA and reduced the health insurance benefit contribution for Medicare-eligible retirees. Retired county employees claimed that the county’s actions violated an implied promise that, upon their retirement, they would receive “fully paid” lifetime retiree health insurance benefits, with premium contributions equal to those paid for active employees.The trial court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs. The court of appeal reversed. The trial court erred in considering inadmissible evidence to ascertain legislative intent and in failing to apply the presumption against finding an implied vested right in the absence of a clear manifestation of legislative intent to contractually bind the county. The trial court considered evidence beyond the legislative record, including the testimony of former members of the county’s board of supervisors and other former county employees regarding their knowledge and understanding of the county’s provision of retiree health insurance benefits. The plaintiffs’ admissible evidence does not support a finding of an implied vested right. View "Rose v. County of San Benito" on Justia Law

Christopher Ross, a former prosecutor with the Riverside County District Attorney’s office (DA’s Office), sued the County of Riverside for whistleblower retaliation and disability discrimination after the DA’s Office allegedly demoted him and refused to accommodate medical issues in response to Ross raising concerns that the DA’s Office was prosecuting an innocent man for murder. During a deposition, the former district attorney who preceded then-District Attorney Paul Zellerbach, Rodric Pacheco, testified about a conversation he had with the district attorney who succeeded Zellerbach, Mike Hestrin. Pacheco testified that he and Hestrin shared the view that Zellerbach was one of the most unethical attorneys they had encountered as prosecutors. Ross subpoenaed Hestrin for a deposition about his communications with the unidentified County lawyers, as well as regarding advice Hestrin provided to Ross in Hestrin’s capacity as an official in the prosecutors’ union in which Ross was a member. The County moved to quash the subpoena, which the trial court granted. The trial court found Hestrin’s alleged communications with the unidentified County lawyers were irrelevant to Ross’s retaliation and discrimination claims, and that Ross could obtain evidence regarding his union rights from other sources. Ross sought a writ of mandate to direct the trial court to vacate its order granting the motion to quash and to enter a new order denying it. The Court of Appeal denied the petition as it related to evidence concerning Hestrin’s role counseling Ross regarding his union rights. The Court granted the petition as it related to alleged requests by the unidentified County lawyers that Hestrin alter his testimony regarding Zellerbach’s ethical character. “[A]lthough we agree with the trial court that the testimony is irrelevant to the merits of Ross’s substantive claims against the County, the testimony is relevant to Zellerbach’s credibility, and he will likely be a material trial witness. Testimony showing the unidentified County lawyers attempted to suppress or alter a witness’s testimony about the credibility of a material witness is also relevant to show the County’s consciousness of guilt.” View "Ross v. Super. Ct." on Justia Law

The defendant hired the plaintiff as a gardener and required him to sign an employment agreement (“Agreement”), which mandates arbitration of “all disputes between Employee and Company relating, in any manner whatsoever, to the employment or termination” of the employee. Plaintiff sued his employer, and the employer demanded arbitration. Plaintiff argued that the defendant waived the right to arbitrate, that he did not sign the Agreement or signed without informed consent, and the Agreement is unconscionable.On appeal, the court reasoned that arbitration agreements are “valid, enforceable and irrevocable, save upon such grounds as exist for the revocation of any contract.” Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 1281. To declare an agreement unenforceable, a court must find procedural and substantive unconscionability. Here, the court found that defendant had superior bargaining power over the plaintiff. Further, the employer drafted the Agreement and presented it to the plaintiff as a condition of employment on a take-it-or-leave basis. The plaintiff claimed he had no opportunity to review the Agreement and was told the English-language Agreement involved a company change, not that it waived his right to a jury trial. The plaintiff was instructed to sign the Agreement or be fired.The court found that the employer presented the plaintiff with an agreement in a language he cannot read, misrepresented the nature of the document, denied him an opportunity to review it, included unfair and onerous provisions, and chilled his ability to claim civil rights violations. Thus, the court denied the defendant’s motion to compel arbitration. View "Nunez v. Cycad Management LLC" on Justia Law

The Court of Appeal reversed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of defendants in a whistleblower retaliation action brought by plaintiff. Plaintiff brought his whistleblower claims in three causes of action, alleging violations of three statutes: Labor Code section 1102.5, Government Code section 8547 et seq., and Health and Safety Code section 1278.5.In Lawson v. PPG Architectural Finishes, Inc. (2022) 12 Cal.5th 703, the California Supreme Court clarified the legal framework that applies to claims under Labor Code Section 1102.5. The court stated that, while Lawson did not discuss Government Code section 8547.10, that statute contains nearly identical language to the language analyzed by the state Supreme Court. Therefore, the court concluded that Lawson's legal framework also applies to plaintiff's Government Code claim. In this case, defendants relied on a legal standard inconsistent with Lawson in seeking summary adjudication of plaintiff's Labor and Government Code claims, and thus the court reversed and remanded as to those claims.In regard to plaintiff's third claim under Health and Safety Code section 1278.5, the court concluded that Lawson did not change the legal framework. The court also concluded that a triable issue of material fact exists regarding whether the stated reasons for termination were pretextual. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded the matter for further proceedings. View "Scheer v. Regents of the University of California" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs Jose Mejia et al. appealed following a jury verdict in favor of defendant Roussos Construction, Inc. Principally, they contended the trial court erred in its instructions to the jury regarding the “ABC test” which determined whether a worker was an employee or an independent contractor for purposes of California wage laws. The trial court had instructed the jury that before the ABC test was applied, plaintiffs had to first establish that they were hired by Roussos Construction or its agent. The Court of Appeal agreed this was error. Plaintiffs also raised several contentions contingent on the Court of Appeal finding plaintiffs were misclassified as independent contractors as a matter of law. The Court reversed the trial court and remanded for a new trial. The Court did not reach plaintiffs' second argument in light of its mandate for a new trial. View "Mejia v. Roussos Construction, Inc." on Justia Law

In 1988, Pacifica voters approved Measure F, entitled “Firefighter Dispute Resolution Process Impasse Resolution Procedures: Minimum Wages and Benefits For Firefighters,” which prescribes procedures to be followed in the event of an impasse in labor disputes with Pacifica firefighters. Under this measure, absent other agreement, the top step salaries of fire captains in the city are to be set at an amount not less than the average for top step salaries of fire captains in five neighboring cities. After an impasse in negotiations occurred in 2019, the Pacifica Firefighters Association (PFFA) sought declaratory relief requiring the City to follow Measure F.The trial court denied the petition, finding Measure F preempted by state law, the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act (MMBA), Government Code section 3500, and an unlawful delegation of power. The court of appeal affirmed. Measure F is unenforceable as a usurpation of authority the Legislature granted exclusively to the city council in section 3505.7. View "Pacifica Firefighters Association v. City of Pacifica" on Justia Law

The plaintiffs in this case were employees at three separate carpet manufacturing facilities operated by defendant Royalty Carpet Mills, Inc. (Royalty), also known as Royalty Carpet Mills, LLC. They alleged representative claims under the Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA), and class claims primarily based on purported meal and rest period violations. They sought premium pay under Labor Code section 226.7 for these violations and asserted derivative claims for waiting time and wage statement penalties, among others. The trial court initially certified two classes: one for employees that worked at a facility in Porterville (the Porterville class) and another for employees that worked in two separate facilities in Orange County (the Dyer/Derian class). Following the presentation of evidence at trial, the court decertified the Dyer/Derian class and entered judgment. The results were mixed and both sides appealed. The Court of Appeal agreed with three of Plaintiffs' six contentions: the court erred in failing to apply the relation back doctrine, in decertifying the Dyer/Derian class, and dismissing the PAGA claims as unmanageable. The case was remanded for further proceedings. View "Estrada v. Royalty Carpet Mills, Inc." on Justia Law

Nancy Michaels worked for more than one year as a Data Processing Manager II (DPM II) before her employer, California’s Public Employees’ Retirement System (CalPERS), voided her appointment at the direction of the State Personnel Board (SPB). After the SPB issued a decision rejecting Michaels’s appeal of the voiding of her appointment, she filed a petition for writ of mandate in superior court. The superior court found that Michaels had served more than one year in her position and directed the SPB to vacate its decision. CalPERS appealed, contending: (1) because Government Code section 19257.5 did not define the date of “appointment,” that term had to refer to when a new hire starts working in a new position for a state employer; (2) interpreting Government Code section 18525 to refer to the dates of offer and acceptance of a employment offer “undermines California’s civil-service law;” (3) the trial court’s definition of “appointment” date yielded an “absurd result” that conflicted with the SPB’s constitutional mandate to ensure uniform application of state civil service law; (4) the application of offer-and-acceptance principles derived from contract law “introduces uncertainty” into the state civil service hiring process; and (5) Michaels was not prejudiced by having her DPM II position voided. The Court of Appeal concluded the trial court correctly determined that the express language of section 18525 defined the term “appointment” to refer to the dates of offer and acceptance. As to CalPERS’s contentions regarding the wisdom of using the dates of offer and acceptance for determining the start of the one-year limitations period for voiding an appointment, the arguments concerned considerations of policy that were better addressed to the Legislature. As to CalPERS’s prejudice argument, the Court concluded its two contentions lack merit: (1) even if Michaels had notice of the possibility that her position would be voided, that notice did not allow CalPERS to act in an untimely manner; and (2) CalPERS’s assertion that Michaels could not avail herself of the statutes governing the limitations period for voiding an appointment would render the governing statutes a mere nullity. Accordingly, the trial court’s judgment was affirmed. View "Michaels v. State Personnel Bd." on Justia Law

An employer has an affirmative duty to provide employees with a safe place to work. This duty does not include ensuring that an off-site meeting place for coworkers and business associates like an employee's private residence is safe from third party criminal harm.The Court of Appeal granted the writ petition challenging the trial court's order denying summary judgment and directed the trial court to enter a new and different order granting summary judgment. In this case, a young man suffering from a mental health condition suddenly fired a handgun at family members and guests inside his family home. Plaintiffs filed a lawsuit against Colonial and Defendant Holaday for personal injury damages, alleging negligence claims stemming from their injuries. The court concluded that Colonial owed no duty to protect plaintiffs because Colonial did not control Holaday's home. Furthermore, Colonial owed Plaintiff Dominguez no duty to protect based on the employer-employee relationship. Finally, the Rowland factors counsel against imposing a duty to protect; plaintiffs' claim of intentional infliction of emotion distress against Colonial fails as a matter of law as there are no triable issues (1) Colonial knew or reasonably should have known that the young man posed a danger to plaintiffs—his deadly misconduct was unforeseeable, and (2) Colonial had no ability to control him; and respondeat superior liability is inapplicable here as a matter of law. View "Colonial Van & Storage, Inc. v. Superior Court" on Justia Law

The Court of Appeal held that the predominant relationship between a medical resident and a hospital residency program is an employee-employer relationship, and so the rule of academic deference does not apply to the jury's determination whether the resident was terminated for discriminatory or retaliatory reasons. In this case, plaintiff presented credible evidence of gender discrimination and retaliation by SMMC, and there is a reasonable probability that, in the absence of the erroneous jury instruction, she would have obtained a more favorable verdict. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded for a new trial. View "Khoiny v. Dignity Health" on Justia Law