Employment Law Blog

Under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”), an employer may not “discharge, expel, or otherwise discriminate against any person because the person opposed any practices forbidden under [FEHA] or because the person has filed a complaint, testified, or assisted in any proceeding under [FEHA].”  Cal. Gov. Code § 12940(h). 
FEHA retaliation claims follow the McDonnell-Douglas burden-shifting framework.  Yanowitz v. L’Oreal USA, Inc., 36 Cal.4th 1028, 1042 (2005).  To establish a prima facie case for retaliation, the employee must establish that (1) they engaged in an activity protected under FEHA, such as filing a discrimination claim; (2) the employer subjected them to adverse employment action; and (3) there was a causal connection between the employee’s protected activity and the employer’s adverse action.  Id.  Once the employee has established a prima facie case for retaliation, the burden shifts to the employer to provide a legitimate, nonretaliatory explanation for the adverse employment action.  Id.  Should the employer successfully rebut, the burden shifts back to the employee to prove intentional retaliation.  Id. 

The Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”) requires that an employer provide reasonable accommodations that allow an employee to perform the essential functions of their job. Gov. Code §12940(m). Where a failure to accommodate was a “substantial factor” in causing the exacerbation of a workplace injury, the employer may recover damages for that exacerbation. See Huffman v. Interstate Brands Corp. (2004) 121 Cal.App.4th 679, 698-699; Fussell v. Timec Company, Inc. (2014) 2014 WL 810917 at *9-13; Bagatti v. Department of Rehabilitation(2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 344, 356-358.

The California Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”) requires employers to reasonably accommodate their employees’ known disabilities and to engage in a “timely, good faith, interactive process” in order to determine effective reasonable accommodations. Government Code section 12940, subd. (m), (n).

California state laws require that all non-exempt employees be compensated at time-and-a-half for all hours worked over 8 hours per day and 40 hours in a week. See California Labor Code section 510(a) and Industrial Welfare Commission (“IWC”) Wage Order, Order No. 7-2001 section 3(A). The law further requires employers to maintain accurate time records for all of the hours worked by its employees, provide accurate itemized wage statements, authorize, permit and provide meal and rest periods, and pay all wages earned to an employee immediately upon their termination.

Employees must be relieved of all duty during their meal and rest breaks. Brinker, 53 Cal.4th at 1035–1036; Faulkinbury v. Boyd & Associates (2013) 216 Cal.App.4th 220, 236. During breaks, an employee “must be free to attend to any personal business he or she may choose.” Brinker, 53 Cal.4th at 1036. An employee is working and “on duty” when he is “subject to the control of an employer,” “including all the time the employee is suffered or permitted to work, whether or not required to do so.” Wage Order No. 9 § 2(H). Time spent by an employee waiting on standby for the benefit of the employer is considered to be on duty. Madera Police Officers Assn. v. City of Madera (1984) 36 Cal.3d 403.

It is the public policy of California that workers not be fired based on their disability, because they have reported illegal activity, or because they have refused to participate in illegal activity.
California Labor Code section 1102.5(b) prohibits an employer from retaliating against an employee for reporting to a government agency any activities that he reasonably believes to violate a state or federal statute.  Labor Code §1102.5 further prohibits retaliation for refusing to participate in any action that would lead to the violation of any state or federal statute. It is illegal to perform contracting work in California without a license (See, e.g. Bus. & Prof. Code§7028). Insurance Fraud is a crime under both Federal and State law (18 U.S.C. §§1341, 1343; Cal. Ins. Code §§1871, et seq.).

Wrongful termination from employment is tortious when the termination occurs in violation of a fundamental public policy. Gantt v. Sentry Insurance (1992) 1 Cal.4th 1083, 1090. A policy is “fundamental” when it is “carefully tethered” to a policy “delineated in constitutional or statutory provisions” (id. at p. 1095), involves a duty affecting the public at large, rather than one owed to or imposed solely upon the parties to a dispute (id. at 1090), and is “well established” and “sufficiently clear” to the employer at the time of the discharge. Id. Wrongful termination cases typically arise when an employer retaliates against an employee for refusing to violate a statute, performing a statutory obligation, exercising a statutory right, or reporting an alleged violation of a statute of public importance. Turner v. Anheuser-Busch, Inc. 7 Cal.4th 1238, 1256 (1994). However, as noted in Soules v. Cadam, Inc. 2 Cal.App.4th 390, 401 (1991), an action for tortious discharge is not strictly limited to these situations but will lie “wherever the basis of the discharge contravenes a fundamental public policy.”

Wrongful termination from employment is tortious when the termination occurs in violation of a fundamental public policy. Gantt v. Sentry Insurance (1992) 1 Cal.4th 1082, 1090. A policy is “fundamental” when it is “carefully tethered” to a policy “delineated in constitutional or statutory provisions” (id. at p. 1095), involves a duty affecting the public at large, rather than one owed to or imposed solely upon the parties to a dispute (id. at 1090), and is “well established” and “sufficiently clear” to the employer at the time of the discharge. Id. Wrongful termination cases typically arise when an employer retaliates against an employee for refusing to violate a statute, performing a statutory obligation, exercising a statutory right, or reporting an alleged violation of a statute of public importance. Turner v. Anheuser-Busch, Inc. 7 Cal.4th 1238, 1256 (1994). However, as noted in Soules v. Cadam, Inc. 2 Cal.App.4th 360, 201 (1991), an action for tortious discharge is not strictly limited to these situations but will lie “wherever the basis of the discharge contravenes a fundamental public policy.”

California Code of Civil Procedure section 1038 allows a public entity defendant to recover defense costs upon prevailing against a legal action, but only where the plaintiff brought or maintained he action in bad faith or without reasonable cause. A determination of good faith involves a factual inquiry into the plaintiff’s state of mind. Bosetti v. U.S. Life Ins. Co. in City of New York (App. 2 Dist. 2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 1208. Reasonable cause is determined by (1) analyzing the facts known to the plaintiff when he or she filed or maintained the action and (2) determining whether any reasonable attorney would have thought the claim tenable. Smith v. Selma Community Hosp. (App. 5 Dist. 2010) 188 Cal.App.4th 1, review denied. A defendant may not recover costs simply because it won a summary judgement or other dispositive motion; victory does not per se indicate lack of reasonable cause. Laabs v. City of Victorville (App. 4 Dist. 2008) 163 Cal.App.4th 1242.