Justia California Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

In March 2020, Eva Osborne sued Pleasanton Automotive Company, LOP Automotive Company LP, HAG Automotive Investments LP, and Bob Slap, alleging workplace misconduct including discrimination, retaliation, harassment, and wage violations. Osborne, who worked as Slap’s executive assistant, claimed Slap required her to perform personal tasks without proper compensation. In response, Slap filed a cross-complaint against Osborne in August 2022, alleging libel, slander, and other claims based on statements Osborne made in a letter to HAG’s HR director.The Alameda Superior Court granted Osborne’s special motion to strike Slap’s cross-complaint under California’s anti-SLAPP statute, concluding that Osborne’s statements were protected activity made in anticipation of litigation and were privileged under Civil Code section 47. The court found that Slap could not show his claims had minimal merit because the statements were privileged and he failed to demonstrate malice.The California Court of Appeal for the First Appellate District reviewed the case de novo and affirmed the trial court’s decision. The appellate court agreed that Osborne’s statements were protected under the anti-SLAPP statute and that the litigation privilege barred Slap’s claims. The court found that Osborne’s HR letter was sent in good faith contemplation of litigation, supported by her retention of counsel and subsequent legal actions. The court did not need to address Osborne’s alternative arguments regarding conditional privilege and malice, as the litigation privilege alone was sufficient to affirm the trial court’s ruling. View "Osborne v. Pleasanton Automotive Co., LP" on Justia Law

Terrence Richard, a brakeman for Union Pacific Railroad Company, fell from a train and broke his leg while working. He sued Union Pacific for negligence under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act (FELA). Richard claimed that the locomotive engineer’s mishandling of the train caused a surge that led to his fall. The trial court excluded the testimony of Richard’s expert, Richard Hess, a retired Union Pacific engineer, who would have testified that the engineer’s actions caused the surge. The jury found in favor of Union Pacific, concluding the company was not negligent.The Superior Court of Los Angeles County granted Union Pacific’s motion in limine to exclude Hess’s testimony, reasoning that Hess lacked the necessary qualifications and expertise. Hess had intended to testify that the delay between releasing the train brakes and engaging the throttle caused excessive slack action, leading to a surge at the rear of the train where Richard was working. The trial court’s exclusion of this testimony left Richard without an expert to support his claim of negligent train handling.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Three, reviewed the case and concluded that the trial court erred in excluding Hess’s testimony. The appellate court found that Hess’s extensive experience as a locomotive engineer qualified him to testify about the train handling practices and the potential dangers of the engineer’s actions. The exclusion of Hess’s testimony was deemed prejudicial because it deprived Richard of critical expert evidence to support his negligence claim. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the judgment for Union Pacific and remanded the matter for a new trial. View "Richard v. Union Pacific Railroad Co." on Justia Law

Blake Wentworth, a former professor at the University of California, Berkeley, sued the Regents of the University of California, alleging violations of the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) and the Information Practices Act (IPA). Wentworth claimed that the Regents failed to engage in the interactive process, provide reasonable accommodations, and invaded his privacy by leaking information about student complaints and his disability accommodations to the media.The Alameda County Superior Court granted summary adjudication in favor of the Regents on three of Wentworth’s causes of action under FEHA and IPA, denied his motion to compel discovery responses, and denied his request for a retrial on a cause of action for which the jury left the verdict form blank. The court also denied Wentworth’s post-judgment request for attorney’s fees and costs.The California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, reviewed the case. The court affirmed the summary adjudication on the claims for failure to engage in the interactive process and provide reasonable accommodations, finding that the Regents had offered reasonable accommodations and engaged in the interactive process in good faith. However, the court reversed the summary adjudication of the invasion of privacy cause of action, finding that there were triable issues of fact regarding whether the Regents violated the IPA by leaking a letter about student complaints and disclosing information about Wentworth’s disability accommodation.The court also reversed the trial court’s denial of Wentworth’s motion for attorney’s fees and costs, remanding for further proceedings to determine whether Wentworth was the prevailing party under the IPA and whether he was entitled to fees under the catalyst theory. The court affirmed the trial court’s denial of Wentworth’s motion for a retrial on the personnel file cause of action, finding that Wentworth had forfeited his right to object to the verdict form by failing to raise the issue before the jury was discharged. View "Wentworth v. UC Regents" on Justia Law

The plaintiffs, employees of the State of California providing dental care to inmates, filed a lawsuit seeking compensation for time spent on pre- and post-shift safety and security activities. These activities included going through security and handling alarm devices. The defendants, including the State of California and related departments, filed a demurrer, arguing that these activities were not compensable under the Portal-to-Portal Act of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The trial court sustained the demurrer without leave to amend, leading to the plaintiffs' appeal.The trial court ruled that the activities in question were not integral and indispensable to the plaintiffs' principal work of providing dental care, thus not compensable under the FLSA. The plaintiffs argued that the trial court improperly decided a factual question and that their claims were viable. The defendants maintained that the trial court's decision was correct and also argued that the plaintiffs' claims were precluded by the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) governing their employment, that the relevant statutes did not apply to government employers, that the plaintiffs failed to exhaust contractual remedies, and that the claims were time-barred.The California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Two, concluded that the trial court erred in not accepting the plaintiffs' allegations as true for the purposes of the demurrer. The appellate court found that the plaintiffs had stated a claim for breach of contract and that the defendants' affirmative defense of failure to exhaust contractual remedies could not be resolved at the demurrer stage. The court also determined that the plaintiffs' contract claim was not time-barred. Consequently, the appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision in part and reversed it in part, allowing the breach of contract claim to proceed. View "Bath v. State" on Justia Law

Sergio Ramirez, a former police officer, was terminated by the City of Indio Police Department following an internal affairs investigation. Ramirez was initially placed on administrative leave after being charged with rape and sexual assault, though he was later acquitted of all criminal charges. Despite the acquittal, the internal investigation concluded that Ramirez had violated several departmental policies, leading to his termination. Ramirez appealed the decision through the administrative appeal process outlined in the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the City and the Indio Police Officers’ Association.The arbitrator, after a full evidentiary hearing, recommended Ramirez's reinstatement with full back pay and benefits. However, the City Manager upheld the termination, citing Ramirez's poor judgment, dishonesty, and conduct unbecoming of an officer. Ramirez then petitioned the Superior Court of Riverside County for a writ of mandate, arguing that the City Manager should have deferred to the arbitrator's findings on the weight and credibility of the evidence. The Superior Court denied the petition, affirming the City Manager's decision.The Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, reviewed the case and affirmed the lower court's judgment. The court held that the MOU clearly vested the City Manager with the final authority to make disciplinary decisions, including the power to reject the arbitrator's advisory findings. The court found that the City Manager had conducted a thorough review of the arbitrator's recommendations and the evidence before making the final decision. The court also concluded that the administrative appeal process provided Ramirez with due process, as it included notice, an opportunity to respond, and a meaningful hearing. The judgment of the Superior Court was affirmed, upholding Ramirez's termination. View "Ramirez v. City of Indio" on Justia Law

A former employee, Liu, sued her employer, Miniso, alleging various employment-related claims, including sexual harassment, sex discrimination, and wage and hour violations. Liu claimed that she faced severe and pervasive harassment and discrimination based on her sexual orientation and gender identity, and that she was misclassified as an exempt employee, leading to unpaid wages and denied breaks. Liu also alleged that she was retaliated against for refusing to participate in illegal practices and for whistleblowing, which led to her constructive termination.The Superior Court of Los Angeles County denied Miniso's motion to compel arbitration of Liu's claims. Miniso argued that Liu's allegations of sexual harassment were insufficient to state a claim and that the arbitration agreement should be enforced for the non-sexual harassment claims. The trial court found that Liu had adequately stated a claim for sexual harassment and, based on the Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act of 2021 (EFAA), ruled that the arbitration agreement was unenforceable for all of Liu's claims.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, affirmed the trial court's decision. The appellate court held that under the EFAA, if a plaintiff's case includes at least one claim of sexual harassment, the entire case is exempt from arbitration at the plaintiff's election. The court emphasized that the EFAA's language invalidates arbitration agreements with respect to the entire case, not just the sexual harassment claims. This interpretation avoids the inefficiency of having separate proceedings for different claims and aligns with the legislative intent to protect plaintiffs from being compelled into arbitration for sexual harassment disputes. View "Liu v. Miniso Depot CA, Inc." on Justia Law

A former professor at the University of California, Berkeley, sued the Regents of the University of California, alleging violations of the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) and the Information Practices Act (IPA). The professor claimed that the university failed to engage in the interactive process and provide reasonable accommodations for his bipolar II disorder, and that it invaded his privacy by leaking information about student complaints and his disability accommodations to the media.The Alameda County Superior Court granted summary adjudication in favor of the Regents on the claims of failure to engage in the interactive process, failure to provide reasonable accommodations, and invasion of privacy. The court also denied the professor’s motion to compel responses to certain discovery requests and his request for a retrial on the cause of action for which the jury left the verdict form blank. The jury found in favor of the Regents on all other claims except for the personnel file cause of action, which the jury did not address due to the instructions on the verdict form.The California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Four, affirmed the trial court’s rulings on the claims of failure to engage in the interactive process and failure to provide reasonable accommodations, finding no prejudicial error. The court also upheld the trial court’s denial of the motion to compel discovery, agreeing that the requests were overly broad and protected by the reporter’s privilege. However, the appellate court reversed the summary adjudication of the invasion of privacy cause of action, finding that there were triable issues of fact regarding whether the Regents violated the IPA by leaking information to the media. The court also reversed the trial court’s denial of attorney’s fees and costs, remanding for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. View "Wentworth v. UC Regents" on Justia Law

In 2022, Congress amended the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) by passing the Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act (EFAA), which renders arbitration agreements unenforceable at the plaintiff’s election in sexual assault and sexual harassment cases arising on or after March 3, 2022. Jane Doe filed a lawsuit in 2023 against her employer, Second Street Corporation, and two supervisors, alleging sexual harassment, discrimination, and wage-and-hour violations. The defendants moved to compel arbitration based on an arbitration provision in the employee handbook. The trial court denied the motion, concluding that the EFAA rendered the arbitration provision unenforceable for all of Doe’s claims and allowed her to file a first amended complaint adding additional claims, including constructive wrongful termination.The Superior Court of Los Angeles County denied the defendants' motion to compel arbitration, finding that Doe’s sexual harassment claims, which included conduct both before and after the EFAA’s effective date, were exempt from mandatory arbitration. The court also ruled that all of Doe’s other claims were exempt from arbitration under the EFAA because they were part of the same case. Additionally, the court permitted Doe to file a first amended complaint.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, affirmed the trial court’s order. The appellate court held that under the EFAA’s plain language, Doe’s sexual harassment claims, which alleged continuing violations both before and after the EFAA’s effective date, were not subject to mandatory arbitration. The court also held that the EFAA invalidates an arbitration clause as to the entire case, not just the claims alleging sexual harassment. Therefore, the trial court properly denied the motion to compel arbitration and did not abuse its discretion by allowing Doe to file a first amended complaint. View "Doe v. Second Street Corp." on Justia Law

A former employee, Campbell, filed a putative class action lawsuit against her employer, Sunshine Behavioral Health, LLC, alleging wage and hour violations. Campbell claimed that employees were not paid proper overtime, were required to work through meal and rest breaks without compensation, were not paid minimum wage, and were not paid in a timely manner. Sunshine initially proceeded with litigation and agreed to participate in mediation. However, Sunshine later claimed to have discovered an arbitration agreement signed by Campbell, which included a class action waiver.The Superior Court of Orange County found that Sunshine had waived its right to compel arbitration. Despite allegedly discovering the arbitration agreement in November 2022, Sunshine continued to engage in mediation discussions and did not inform Campbell or the court of its intent to compel arbitration until March 2023. Sunshine's delay and conduct were deemed inconsistent with an intent to arbitrate, leading the court to conclude that Sunshine had waived its right to arbitration.The California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division Three, reviewed the case and affirmed the lower court's decision. The appellate court found clear and convincing evidence that Sunshine had waived its right to arbitration. The court noted that Sunshine's actions, including agreeing to mediation on a class-wide basis and delaying the motion to compel arbitration, were inconsistent with an intent to arbitrate. The court emphasized that Sunshine's conduct demonstrated an intentional abandonment of the right to arbitrate, thus affirming the order denying the motion to compel arbitration. View "Campbell v. Sunshine Behavioral Health" on Justia Law

Maria Miller, a correctional officer with the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR), was injured in 2016 while on a temporary assignment. After her worker’s compensation benefits were exhausted in 2018, CDCR placed her on unpaid leave. CDCR later offered her a medical demotion to an alternative position, which she did not accept, citing a newly disclosed mental disability. Miller has remained on unpaid leave since then. In 2020, she sued CDCR under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) for disability discrimination, failure to accommodate, failure to engage in the interactive process, failure to prevent discrimination, and retaliation.The Superior Court of Riverside County granted summary judgment in favor of CDCR, concluding that CDCR was entitled to summary adjudication on each cause of action. The court found that Miller could not perform the essential functions of her job as a correctional officer due to her disabilities and that CDCR had offered reasonable accommodations, which she either accepted or refused.The California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division Two, reviewed the case and affirmed the lower court’s decision. The court held that CDCR had met its burden by showing that Miller could not perform the essential duties of her job and that reasonable accommodations were offered. The court also found that Miller failed to produce evidence of a material dispute of fact regarding her ability to perform her job or the reasonableness of the accommodations offered. The court concluded that CDCR was not liable for disability discrimination, failure to accommodate, failure to engage in the interactive process, failure to prevent discrimination, or retaliation. The judgment was affirmed. View "Miller v. Dept. of Corrections and Rehabilitation" on Justia Law