Justia California Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

Beau Gordon, a professional roofer, fell 35 feet through a "camouflaged hole" in a warehouse roof he was inspecting. For the resulting head injury, a jury awarded Gordon approximately $875,000 against the building's owner, ARC Manufacturing, Inc. (ARC) and Joseph Meyers. The primary issue on appeal was whether the trial court correctly refused to instruct on primary assumption of risk where, as here, defendants did not hire or engage Gordon. The Court of Appeal concluded that primary assumption of risk did not apply, rejected appellants' other contentions, and affirmed the judgment. View "Gordon v. ARC Manufacturing, Inc." on Justia Law

Former psychologist at Ironwood State Prison (Ironwood), John Doe, sued his former employer, the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR), under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) alleging discrimination, retaliation, and harassment based on disability. Doe also alleged CDCR violated FEHA by failing to accommodate his two disabilities, asthma and dyslexia, by relocating him to a cleaner and quieter office and providing him with requested computer equipment. Finding no triable issues of material fact, the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of CDCR. Finding no reversible error in that judgment, the Court of Appeal affirmed. View "Doe v. Dept. of Corrections and Rehabilitation" on Justia Law

Former managers of Safeway supermarket stores filed suit seeking unpaid overtime wages, claiming they had been misclassified as exempt executives under regulations applicable to the mercantile industry. A jury found that Safeway had proven that William Cunningham had been an exempt employee and was therefore not entitled to overtime pay. Cunningham challenged the trial court's instruction based on the language in Batze v. Safeway, Inc. (2017) 10 Cal.App.5th 440, and Heyen v. Safeway Inc. (2013) 216 Cal.App.4th 795.The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's judgment and clarified that a task does not become exempt merely because the manager undertakes it in order to contribute to the smooth functioning of the store. The court held that an instruction on the consideration of the manager’s purpose, where appropriate, must inform the jury of relevant limiting principles outlined in the applicable regulations and recognized by the court's prior decisions. Therefore, the court held that the trial court's instruction did not affect the jury's verdict. The court also held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the contested expert testimony under the circumstances of this case. View "Safeway Wage and Hour Cases" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, a political cartoonist and blogger, filed suit against The Times and others, alleging causes of action for defamation and for wrongful termination in violation of public policy. Plaintiff filed suit after The Times published a "note to readers" and a later more detailed report questioning the accuracy of a blog post plaintiff wrote for The Times. The trial court granted defendants' anti-SLAPP motions to strike plaintiff's complaint.In light of Wilson v. Cable News Network, Inc. (2019) 7 Cal.5th 871, the Court of Appeal again affirmed the trial court's orders. The court held that plaintiff's defamation claims arose from The Times articles and both were published in a public forum, concerning issues of public interest. The court also held that plaintiff failed to produce evidence demonstrating a probability of prevailing on his defamation claims, where The Times articles were fair and true reports of an LAPD investigation that was central to the substance of the articles, and accordingly absolutely privileged under Civil Code section 47, subdivision (d). In regard to plaintiff's employment claims, the court held that Wilson confirmed that The Times met its burden to show plaintiff's employment claims arose from protected activity. Furthermore, plaintiff could not prevail on the merits of his claims for wrongful termination and breach of an express oral contract. View "Rall v. Tribune 365, LLC" on Justia Law

Mathews worked for Happy Valley Conference Center in the Santa Cruz Mountains. Valley is an affiliate of the Community of Christ. When a younger male employee confided in Mathews that Valley’s female executive director had been sending him sexually inappropriate text messages, Mathews reported the allegation to the board of directors and the Church’s general counsel. The director admitted sending the messages, was reprimanded, and was allowed to continue supervising Mathews and the younger male employee. Mathews, terminated less than a month later, alleged retaliatory termination. Defendants were ordered to pay almost $900,000 in damages (including punitive damages) and $1 million in attorney’s fees.The court of appeal affirmed, rejecting arguments that the Church cannot be held liable for Valley’s actions because the two do not fall within the single employer doctrine and that the single employer doctrine jury instruction was prejudicially erroneous; that Valley is not liable under Title VII, 42 U.S.C. 2000, because it does not have enough full-time employees; that defendants are not liable under the version of the whistleblower statute in effect at the time of the events; that the evidence was insufficient to establish that the Church breached Mathews's implied or actual contract; that the Title VII damages were beyond the maximum allowed; that noneconomic and punitive damages were not recoverable for breach of contract; that punitive damages were excessive; and that attorney’s fees were not recoverable. The judgment must be modified to reflect that defendants are exempt from liability under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act, Gov. Code, 12900. View "Mathews v. Happy Valley Conference Center, Inc." on Justia Law

In 2002 or 2003, Sonoma County authorized increased pension benefits for County employees, pursuant to a settlement of employee lawsuits alleging past miscalculation of retirement benefits. In doing so, the County failed to comply with state laws requiring local legislative bodies to obtain an actuarial statement of the future annual costs of proposed pension increases and to make the future annual costs public at a public meeting, before authorizing the pension increases, Gov. Code 7507, 23026, 31515.5, 31516. In 2017, Plaintiff, a county resident and taxpayer filed a mandamus petition, alleging those violations and seeking to enjoin payment of the increased pension benefits. The trial court dismissed, finding the claim barred by the statute of limitations. The court of appeal affirmed., holding that the continuous accrual doctrine does not trigger a new limitations period every time retirement benefits are paid pursuant to the increased pension benefits approved in 2002 and 2003. Neither delayed discovery nor estoppel applies to toll the statute of limitations. View "Luke v. Sonoma County" on Justia Law

The Court of Appeal reversed the trial court's judgments granting petitions for writ of mandate filed by plaintiffs, former LAPD sergeants. The trial court ordered the city to vacate plaintiffs' terminations and provide them with the opportunity for an administrative appeal.The court held that the city's provision of a hearing before the Board of Rights was the administrative appeal Government Code section 3304, subdivision (b) requires. In this case, plaintiffs' Board hearings were not optional but mandated, because the police chief's selected sanction was the ultimate penalty of removal and the City of Los Angeles Charter required automatic Board review. The court explained that the Charter's requirement of a Board hearing when the chief selects removal bakes into the standard procedure what the Public Safety Officers Procedural Bill of Rights Act (POBRA) requires: an administrative appeal for the officer to establish a formal record of the circumstances surrounding his removal, and to attempt to convince LAPD to change the sanction. The court declined to require more than POBRA mandates. View "Gonzalez v. City of Los Angeles" on Justia Law

In separate incidents, claimants Miguel Velazquez and Servando Velazquez suffered injuries within the scope of their employment, and each required Spanish language interpreting services in connection with their medical care. Meadowbrook Insurance Company was the workers’ compensation carrier for the claimants’ employers and accepted both claims and administered benefits. DFS Interpreting (“DFS”), which provided interpreter services to each claimant, timely submitted invoices to Meadowbrook for the services provided. Meadowbrook refused to pay the invoices DFS submitted. DFS objected to the insurance company’s explanations of review, but did not request a second review pursuant to Labor Code section 4603.2 (e) or California Code of Regulations, title 8, section 9792.5.5. Meadowbrook petitioned for writ of review of the Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board’s (WCAB) decision on reconsideration that liens held by DFS Interpreting (DFS) against Meadowbrook regarding unpaid invoices for interpreter services DFS provided to Meadowbrook’s insureds were not foreclosed by DFS’s failure to follow procedural rules. The Court of Appeal issued the writ, and held that DFS’s failure to comply with required procedures resulted in DFS’s bills being deemed satisfied. This result meant Meadowbrook was not liable for further payment. The Court annulled the WCAB’s decision to the contrary and remanded for further proceedings. View "Meadowbrook Ins. Co. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd." on Justia Law

SEIU filed an unfair practice charge with the PERB, alleging that the county's refusal to process its petition to represent nonphysician employees of medical clinics violated the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act (MMBA). The MMBA governs employer-employee relations between public agencies and public employees. The ALJ found in favor of the county, but the PERB reversed and found that the county was a single employer, or in the alternative, a joint employer. The county contended that PERB had no jurisdiction because the county was not an employer within the meaning of the MMBA.The Court of Appeal denied the county's petition for extraordinary relief from PERB's decision, holding that substantial evidence supported PERB's finding that the county was a joint-employer of clinic employees. Among other things, the county exercised control over compensation and staffing decisions, and had ultimate control over the clinics' financial resources that pay for compensation and staffing. View "County of Ventura v. Public Employment Relations Board" on Justia Law

GPP employed Le, a scientist, and disclosed to Le the proprietary formula for its trade secret product (a film that preserves lettuce) and the identity of an organic acid used in the product. Le signed a confidentiality agreement. After leaving GPP, Le formed a company and competed with GPP. In 2006, GPP and Le agreed to a stipulated permanent injunction to “fully and finally resolve all existing and potential differences” arising from Le’s use of GPP’s trade secret. In 2016, Le moved to modify or dissolve the stipulated permanent injunction, arguing that newly discovered facts—that citric acid was the previously undisclosed organic acid—demonstrated that GPP’s trade secret did not possess a commercial advantage; that GPP’s trade secret was previously publicly disclosed in a patent; and that the injunction’s language was overly broad and failed to provide adequate notice of the specific actions that were enjoined. The court of appeal affirmed a denial of relief. Le did not meet the requirements of Code of Civil Procedure section 533. There is sufficient evidence to support an implied determination that GPP has a valid trade secret. The injunction did not identify the precise formula or ingredients used in GPP’s trade secret, but its failure to do so did not mean that GPP’s description of its trade secret was not sufficiently clear. View "Global Protein Products, Inc. v. Le" on Justia Law