Blowing the Whistle—When Can You Go to Court about Retaliation?

Whistleblowers—employees who sound the alarm on their employer’s or coworkers’ illegal activity—are vital to protect the public from corporate and government wrongdoing. But there are understandable reasons that employees choose not to speak out, including fear of retaliation. Whistleblower protection laws are designed to prohibit retaliation and encourage whistleblowing.

California’s whistleblower protection laws are some of the nation’s most expansive. A central component of California’s whistleblower protection scheme is Section 1102.5 of the California Labor Code, which, among other protections, prevents employers from retaliating against employees who make complain internally, make whistleblowing reports to government agencies, or participate in government investigations. Section 1102.5 aims to encourage employees to speak out against wrongdoing. The 2003 amendments also codified the California appellate court decision in Gardenhire v. City of Los Angeles Housing Authority (2000) 85 Cal.App.4th 236, to clarify that a government employee’s report to the agency where they work constitutes whistleblowing activity.

But when do government whistleblowers get to enforce their rights in court? Sometimes, government employees who are subject to retaliatory acts—such as termination, demotion, official discipline, etc.—file administrative complaints. Such a complaint can involve a hearing, presentation of evidence, and legal representation, among other formal aspects. Sometimes, the administrative process will eliminate an individual’s right to proceed in court altogether. If an administrative decision lacks the “requisite judicial character” to constitute a full resolution of the legal issue, a court may step in. Sometimes an administrative decision will not be considered a final decision if that would go against the legislature’s intent, given that the legislature created the administrative body in the first place.   

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals recently considered the legislative intent exception as it applies to public sector employees alleging whistleblower retaliation in Bahra v. County of San Bernardino. The plaintiff, Eric Bahra, was employed by San Bernardino County’s Department of Children and Family Services, which investigates referrals regarding child abuse, among other duties. While investigating allegations of abuse against a foster parent, Bahra discovered that the foster parent had a prior history of child abuse and neglect, but this history was not reflected in the agency’s database due to errors in previous entries.

He told his manager. Later that day, he witnessed his manager and another agency employee looking through the files on his desk. Next, the agency initiated an investigation into Bahra, assigned him to desk duty, then placed him on administrative leave. Eventually, the agency provided Bahra with a notice of proposed dismissal. He contested it in an initial administrative hearing in 2013, but the hearing officer ruled for the County and the agency dismissed Bahra. He appealed and requested a full evidentiary hearing at the County’s Civil Service Commission. After a 14-day hearing and testimony from 27 witnesses in 2014, the Commission’s hearing officer, in 2015, rejected Bahra’s retaliation claims, and the Commission adopted the hearing officer’s report. Although he was informed that he could seek a writ of mandamus pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure 1094.5, he elected not to do so. Instead, he filed a civil suit in the United States District Court, bringing claims under Section 1102.5 and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The District Court dismissed the complaint in 2018 on grounds of issue preclusion and claim preclusion, meaning, that because the matter had been fully adjudicated administratively, it could not be brought in court.

On December 30, 2019, the Ninth Circuit reversed as to Bahra’s Section 1102.5 claim. The court analyzed two state court decisions: Taswell v. Regents of University of California 23 Cal.App.5th 343 (2018), in which the California Court of Appeals held that administrative findings by a state agency do not preclude retaliation claims brought under Section 1102.5; and, Murray v. Alaska Airlines 50 Cal.4th 860 (2010), where the California Supreme Court held that a federal employee’s retaliation claim was precluded. The agency argued that Murray indicated that the California Supreme Court would disagree with Taswell.

The Ninth Circuit rejected this argument. First, the court stated that Murray was highly specific to the factual and legal circumstances of the case. It did not purport to apply to all administrative decisions, especially in light of federalism issues at play in Murray but absent in Bahra. Second, Murray analyzed the first exception—the “sufficiently judicial character” exception—and not the legislative intent exception. Third, the Ninth circuit looked to California Supreme Court precedent more recent than Murray, including decisions on which Taswell relied, which suggested that the California Supreme Court would agree with Taswell. Accordingly, the Ninth Circuit ruled that the Department of Child and Family Services decision did not preclude Bahra from bringing his Section 1102.5 claim to court.

But it was not a total victory for Bahra; the Ninth Circuit ruled against him with respect to his Section 1983 claims. Bahra had not argued that giving preclusive effect to the Section 1983 decision would go against legislative intent, so the Ninth Circuit did not address the issue. Instead, the court looked exclusively to the judicial character of the proceeding and, finding it sufficient, held that the Section 1983 claim was precluded, affirming the lower court.

If you have suffered workplace retaliation for whistleblowing activity, contact Bryan Schwartz Law.

Giving Thanks for Worker Protections—California Supreme Court and California Legislature Limit Arbitration Agreements in Employment

The California Supreme Court handed down a decision earlier this year that adds to the growing body of law surrounding mandatory arbitration agreements and delivering a victory for employees. The case is Oto, L.L.C. v. Kho (2019) 8 Cal.5th 111. This decision, plus the California Legislature’s recent legislation in AB-51, limit the extent to which employers can attempt to force their employees into binding arbitration.

Employers increasingly require their employees to sign mandatory arbitration agreements. By these agreements, employees waive their right to pursue employment actions against their employers by any means besides binding arbitration. The arbitration process often favors employers and effectively stymies employees’ efforts to vindicate their rights, protecting employers that wish to skirt the law. Employers’ reliance on mandatory arbitration has ballooned following the past decade of U.S. Supreme Court cases whittling away at employees’ right to vindicate their employment grievances in court or through an administrative proceeding. Given that mandatory arbitration agreements are so widespread, Bryan Schwartz Law has blogged about them many times, including here, here, here, here, and here.

One of the ways in which an employee may be able to escape from the requirements of a mandatory arbitration agreement is by arguing that the agreement itself is invalid, using the same legal arguments that could be made as to any contract. Oto v. Kho addressed one of these contract defenses in particular: the doctrine of unconscionability.

A contract might be unconscionable in one of two ways. First, the contract could be procedurally unconscionable. This means that the circumstances in which the contract was formed were so unfair that one of the parties could not have agreed to it based on their own free will.

Second, the contract could be substantively unconscionable. This means that the terms of the contract themselves are so unfair against one party that a court will refuse to enforce the contract.

Both were present in Oto v. Kho, the California Supreme Court ruled. The plaintiff in the case, Ken Kho, worked for One Toyota in Oakland, California, for three years before he was presented with several documents, including a mandatory arbitration agreement, by a low-level employee. Kho, whose first language is Chinese, was forced to sign the agreement immediately without a chance to review the agreement first. Later, Kho filed a complaint with the California Labor Commissioner against One Toyota for unpaid wages. One Toyota moved to compel arbitration on the eve of a hearing before the Labor Commissioner and refused to participate in the proceedings before the Labor Commissioner any further. The proceedings took place without One Toyota, and the Labor Commissioner entered an award for Kho.

The trial court vacated the award but did not compel arbitration. The court of appeal reversed, holding that, despite the apparent procedural unconscionability, the agreement was not substantively unconscionable.

The California Supreme Court disagreed. First, several aspects of the formation of the agreement smacked of procedural unconscionability. The agreement was presented to Kho at his workplace, along with other employment-related documents. No one explained the document or provided a copy in Kho’s native language, but he was required to sign it in order to keep his job. If Kho had insisted on taking the time to review the documents, his pay would have been reduced because he was paid on a piece-rate basis. The agreement was communicated to Kho by a low-level employee, indicating that One Toyota would not entertain any request for explanation. Furthermore, the low-level employee waited for Kho to review and execute the agreement, which created the impression that Kho was expected to do so immediately. One Toyota did not give Kho a copy of the executed agreement.

Moreover, the language of the agreement was rife with complex legalese and convoluted sentences. This dense paragraph was printed on tiny font; the court of appeal characterized it as “visually impenetrable.” The agreement’s deceptive nature was also apparent in how it characterized the responsibility for the costs of arbitration. The agreement set forth that the costs of arbitration would be split between the parties unless controlling case law provided otherwise, without noting that the controlling decision in Armendariz v. Foundation Health Psychcare Services, Inc. (2000) 24 Cal.4th 83, created an exception to this default rule in employment cases. Taken together, these aspects of the agreement demonstrated that it “did not promote voluntary or informed agreement.”

Second, the agreement was substantively unconscionable. It provided no indication as to how one could bring an action in arbitration, as the agreement required. The process set forth in the mandatory arbitration agreement was as complex and intricate as the process for civil litigation, requiring arbitration to be initiated through the filing of a complaint and setting forth specific motions and discovery procedures. These procedures ran counter to the supposed benefits of arbitration—its purported speed and efficiency. The Court was also concerned that the arbitration agreement all but required claimants to hire legal counsel due to the complexity of its procedures, forcing employees to incur attorneys’ fees, whereas employees bringing wage claims have access to free legal assistance from the Labor Commissioner. Given that Kho’s mandatory arbitration agreement was both procedurally and substantively unconscionable, it was unenforceable.

The California Legislature also made a foray into mandatory arbitration provisions, amending the Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”) to protect employees against forced arbitration. The amendment, AB-51, makes it an unlawful employment action to require any current or prospective employee to waive the right to pursue their FEHA claims in court or any other forum—in other words, employers cannot require employees to sign mandatory arbitration provisions as a condition of employment. The new legislation, set to take effect on January 1, 2020, also includes a provision prohibiting employers from retaliating against any employee because of their refusal to agree to mandatory arbitration.

If you have an employment dispute against your current or former employer, contact Bryan Schwartz Law.

No Question of Timing – Dynamex Applies Retroactively, Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Says

It makes a big difference whether a worker is an employee or an independent contractor. Employees benefit from the protections of labor, employment, and other valuable statutory protections that do not cover independent contractors.

The breadth of “employee” status has been clarified under developing California law. Last year, the California Supreme Court decided the landmark case Dynamex Operations W. v. Superior Court (2018) 4 Cal.5th 903, about which Bryan Schwartz Law has written previously. This case established the “ABC” test for determining whether a worker is an employee or an independent contractor, with a presumption that a worker is an employee, i.e., with the burden on putative employers to demonstrate that workers are independent contractors. Id. at 957. To meet this burden, the putative employer must show (a) that the worker is free from the control and direction of the hiring entity, (b) the worker performs work outside the usual scope of the entity’s business, and (c) the worker is engaged in an independently established trade, occupation, or business. Id. at 964. Failing to demonstrate any one of these elements is sufficient to show an employee-employer relationship. Id. at 964.

But does the Dynamex test apply retroactively to cases arising before it was decided? It does, according to the decision in Vazquez v. Jan-Pro Franchising International, Inc., which the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued on May 2, 2019. Workers for international janitorial giant Jan-Pro filed this case in 2008, alleging Jan-Pro implements a business model to misclassify workers as independent contractors and escape the company’s minimum wage and overtime responsibilities. Jan-Pro contracts with franchises of “master owners,” which in turn contracts with “unit franchisees.” Master owners themselves do not clean but instead engage in various managerial or administrative duties; unit franchisees clean. The plaintiffs, janitorial workers at unit franchisees, alleged they were misclassified as independent contractors.

The case had a tortured procedural history with over a decade of litigation, dispositive decisions, and appeals in federal and state courts in California, Georgia, and Massachusetts. In the Ninth Circuit, Jan-Pro argued that a judicial ruling in Georgia had already decided the issue, thereby conclusively resolving the Ninth Circuit case as well under the doctrine of res judicata. Regardless, Jan-Pro argued, the Dynamex decision should not apply retroactively to cases arising before it was decided in 2018.

The Ninth Circuit rejected both arguments. The Court disposed of the res judicata arguments on grounds specific to the procedural history of the litigation. In brief, the Court held that the Massachusetts plaintiff was not in privity with the California plaintiffs, nor did he legally represent their interests—the California plaintiffs could not lose their day in court simply because of a similar case involving someone else on the east coast.

Next the Court addressed the important issue at stake for California workers: whether the Dynamex decision applied retroactively. The answer was a resounding “yes.” California’s judicial decisions traditionally apply retroactively, even when overruling past precedent. The Court adhered to this traditional rule, drawing further support from other California courts’ retroactive application of the Dynamex decision and the California Supreme Court’s summary denial of a petition to modify Dynamex to clarify that it was prospective only. Notably, despite its considerable impact on the lives of workers and employment law practice, the Dynamex decision did not create new law but instead hewed close to the fundamental purpose of existing California law. Because the lower court had dismissed the workers’ claims on summary judgment before Dynamex was decided, the Ninth Circuit remanded the case for a decision in light of Dynamex.

If you believe you are misclassified as an independent contractor and should enjoy the same rights as an employee, contact Bryan Schwartz Law.

Beginning July 1, California will require Employers to Provide Notice to Employees about Rights to Domestic Violence Leave

On September 14, 2016, Governor Brown signed AB 2337, a bill that requires employers of twenty-five (25) employees or more to provide notice to employees of their rights to take protected time off for domestic violence, sexual assault, or stalking. Existing California law already prohibited an employer from discharging or in any manner discriminating or retaliating against an employee for taking time off for specified purposes related to addressing domestic violence, sexual assault, or stalking. Existing law also provides that any employee who is discharged, threatened with discharge, demoted, suspended, or in any manner discriminated or retaliated against in the terms and conditions of employment by his or her employer because the employee has taken time off for those purposes is entitled to reinstatement and reimbursement for lost wages and work benefits caused by the acts of the employer, as well as appropriate equitable relief, and is allowed to file a complaint with the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement.

Employees can use this protected leave for matters that arise from being a victim of domestic violence, sexual assault, or stalking, including but not limited to:

• Seeking medical attention for injuries;

• Obtaining services from domestic violence shelters, programs, or rape crisis centers;

• Obtaining psychological counseling; 

• Participating in safety planning and taking related actions such as seeking a temporary or permanent relocation.

Employees are also entitled to use any available vacation or sick leave for such purposes.

This new law signed by Governor Brown requires California employers to “inform each employee of his or her rights” when a new employee is hired and to other employees upon request. The Labor Commissioner will develop a form for employers to use for these purposes, which will be published on the Commissioner’s website on July 1, 2017.  Notice requirements for employers also take effect on July 1, 2017.

Seventh Circuit Holds Federal Law Prohibits Employers From Firing People Because they are Gay

Before the full panel, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit issued a groundbreaking decision, holding 8-3 that workplace discrimination based on sexual orientation violates federal civil rights law.

The case involved a lesbian, Kimberley Hively, who sued Ivy Tech Community College when it denied her full-time employment and promotions because she was a lesbian and married to a woman. Hively began teaching at Ivy Tech in 2000 as a part-time adjunct professor. Between 2009 and 2014, Hively applied for at least six full-time positions, but each of these efforts were unsuccessful; even worse, in July 2014 her part-time contract with Ivy Tech was not renewed, resulting in her termination.

After she was terminated, Hively filed an administrative complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, alleging that Ivy Tech discriminated against her because of her sexual orientation and violated her rights under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. After the trial court dismissed the case, the Seventh Circuit initially affirmed the the trial court's decision based on decades of case law that held sexual orientation was not a protected category under Title VII. Hively v. Ivy Tech Cmty. Coll., 830 F.3d 698 (7th Cir. 2016). 

Before the Seventh Circuit's full panel, Chief Judge Diane Wood, writing for the majority, brought new life into analyzing claims of sexual orientation discrimination under Title VII. The court framed the main question of the case as a question of statutory interpretation: what does it mean to discriminate on the basis of sex, and in particular, are actions taken on the basis of sexual orientation  a subset of actions taken on the basis of sex?

Guided by the U.S. Supreme Court's approach in a related case addressing whether Title VII covered sexual harassment inflicted by a man on a male victim (Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Servs., Inc., 523 U.S. 75 (1998)), the Seventh Circuit acknowledged that discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation may not have been the principal evil Congress was concerned with when it passed Title VII. The Seventh Circuit nonetheless found that "statutory prohibitions often go beyond the principal evil to cover reasonably comparable evils, and it is ultimately the provisions of our laws rather than the principal concerns of our legislators by which [courts] are governed." Id. at 79-80. The court also acknowledged that Title VII has been understood to cover far more than the simple decision of an employer not to hire a woman simply because of her gender.

Hively framed her argument for why she should be covered by Title VII under two approaches: (1) a simple comparison isolating Hively's sex and the significance it played in her employer's decision; and (2) relying on Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967), which found that the Fourteenth Amendment of the constitution protects interracial marriages, holding that Title VII protects Hively's right to associate intimately with a person of the same sex. 

Under the first approach, the court found that if Hively had been a man married to a woman, and everything else would have stayed the same, Ivy Tech would not have refused to promote her and would not have fired her. The court stated that "any discomfort, disapproval, or job decision based on the fact that the complainant - man or woman - dresses differently, speaks differently, or dates and marries a same-sex partner, is a reaction purely and simply based on sex," falling within Title VII's prohibition against sex discrimination. 

Addressing the second theory of discrimination presented by Hively, the court, relying on decades of cases holding that Title VII prohibits discrimination based on the race with whom a person associates, found that Ivy Tech's discrimination against Hively based on the sex of the person she associated with is also prohibited under the act. 

The court concluded with a clear holding: a person alleging that he or she experienced employment discrimination on the basis of his or her sexual orientation has put forth a case of sex discrimination for Title VII purposes. 

This is a landmark decision for the LGBTQ community, extending federal employment protections in Wisconsin, Illinois, and Indiana, which previously had state laws that only prohibited employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation with regards to state employment. This decision will now cover all private and public employers subject to Title VII. And, this will hopefully lead to other U.S. Circuit Courts revisiting this issue and expanding employment protections across the country for the LGBTQ community.

In California, the state's Fair Employment and Housing Act and Unruh Civil Rights Act have explicitly protected sexual orientation and gender identity from discrimination in employment, housing, and public accommodations for many years. Last year, California's Department of Fair Employment and Housing became the first state civil rights agency to issue guidance to employers regarding transgender employees.

If you have experienced discrimination based upon your sexual orientation, and need help, contact Bryan Schwartz Law.