"The California Supreme Court issued a small number of important series of labor and employment law decisions in 2008."
|
|
|
|
|
 |
2008
California Supreme Court Decisions
Labor & Employment Law
By Christopher W. Olmsted
The following is a summary of significant California Supreme Court 2008 decisions in the area of labor and employment law. For more detailed articles, click on the links associated with each case.
Disability Law / Medical Marijuana
Ross v. Ragingwire
California voters legalized the use of medical marijuana in 1996. Does that mean employers must hire pot smokers who claim that they are protected by disability discrimination laws? No. In Ross v. Ragingwire, the California Supreme Court ruled that the Compassionate Use Act of 1996 does not regulate the employment relationship. California's highest court also confirmed that California's anti-discrimination law, the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), does not require employers to accommodate illegal drug use. In so doing, the court expressly reaffirmed an employer's right to require job applicants to submit to testing for illegal drugs.
Click here for a more detailed report.
FEHA Retaliation
Jones v. Lodge at Torrey Pines
The California Supreme Court handed a victory to employers on March 3rd in a case titled Jones v. The Lodge at Torrey Pines. The decision related to liability under California's Fair Employment and Housing Act ("FEHA"). The California law prohibits discrimination in the workplace, and also prohibits retaliation against an employee who protests illegal discrimination, files a complaint, or testifies in a legal proceeding. Can an individual supervisor be held personally liable for FEHA retaliation? No, according to the Court. Ten years ago, the California Supreme Court held that individuals cannot be held liable for FEHA discrimination. Only the employer (usually a company) can be liable. In Jones, the Court reasoned that if an individual cannot be liable for discrimination, she ought not to be held liable for retaliation either.
Click here for a more detailed report.
CFRA Medical Certifications
Loniki v. Sutter Home
Does an employer’s failure to invoke the CFRA’s dispute-resolution mechanism of having a health care provider jointly chosen by the parties determine the employee’s entitlement to medical leave bar the employer from later claiming that the employee did not suffer from a serious health condition and was capable of performing her job? Answer: No.
The Court looked to the legislative language of CFRA. It found nothing in the statute required the employer to obtain a third opinion. Further, nothing in the statute bars the employer, once a lawsuit is filed, from defending itself on the ground that the employee did not suffer from a “serious health condition.”
“Under both the CFRA and its federal counterpart, the FMLA, an employee is entitled to medical leave when, because of a serious health condition, the employee cannot perform the assigned job’s duties. If an employer doubts the validity of such a claim, nothing in either law precludes the employer from denying the employee’s request for medical leave and discharging the employee if the employee does not come to work.”
After noting that medical exams are optional, the Court added: “Of course, an employer embarking on that course risks a lawsuit by the employee and perhaps a finding by the [jury] that the employer’s conduct violated the employee’s rights under either the CFRA or the FMLA, or both, by denying the requested medical leave. To avoid such risks, the employer can resort to the [medical certification] mechanism provided for by both laws.”
Click here for a more detailed report
Wage & Hour Law
Brinker v. Superior Court
Although the California Supreme Court has not issued a ruling, it is worth noting that in 2008 it granted review of a pro-employer meal and rest period case, Brinker Restaurant v. Superior Court. A decision should arrive in 2009 sometime.
The following issue is at the heart of the Brinker case: under California law, is it enough for an employer to make meal and rest periods available to employees to take or not take as they see fit, or does the employer have an affirmative duty to force employees to actually take their breaks?
Click here for a more detailed report.
Non-Competition Agreements
Edwards v. Arthur Anderson
California law voids non-competition agreements restricting the right of employees, post-employment, to work for competitors. A few federal courts interpreting California law had recognized a “narrow restraint” exception, where the agreement only prohibits an employee from working in a narrow market segment (i.e., a little bit of restraint is ok).
In Edwards v. Arthur Anderson, the California Supreme Court rejected this exception. Mr. Edwards was an accountant for Arthur Anderson. When he was hired, the firm required him to sign a noncompete agreement that prohibited him from working for or soliciting certain Arthur Anderson clients for a 12 to 18 month period following termination. The Court ruled that the agreement was void.
The court reasoned that the "narrow restraint" exception is contrary to California public policy favoring competition and the ability of citizens to work in their chosen professions. Although prior cases had recognized the narrow restraint exception, the exception was created by federal courts, not California state courts. The court held that the federal courts have misapplied California law, and that therefore those federal precedents are disregarded.
Click here for a more detailed report.
Civil Rights / Religious Accommodation
North Coast Women’s Care Group, Inc. v. Superior Court
A customer seeks a service from your company, but one of your employees refuses to serve the customer because of the customer’s sexual orientation. The employee claims that it is against his religious beliefs to provide the service. May the company lawfully deny the customer service? No.
The California Supreme Court recently addressed this issue in a San Diego case titled North Coast Women’s Care Group, Inc. v. Superior Court. The case involved a medical clinic where some of the clinic’s physicians refused to provide fertility treatment to a lesbian patient.
The California Supreme Court analyzed the federal and California constitutions, and concluded that the physicians could not violate the Unruh Act in the name of religious freedom. “A religious objector has no … constitutional right to an exemption from a neutral and valid law of general applicability on the ground that compliance with that law is contrary to the objector’s religious beliefs.”
Click here for a more detailed report.
More Legal Update articles.
Download entire January Legal Update in PDF format.
This article is intended as a brief overview of the law and are not intended to substitute as legal advice. Any questions or concerns regarding any statute or case law should be addressed to a licensed attorney. Copyright © 2009 by Barker Olmsted & Barnier, APLC. San Diego, California. All rights reserved.
|
Copyright © 2007 Barker Olmsted & Barnier.
All Rights Reserved. Powered by Infinitude.net Disclaimer.
Privacy Notice. 