NLRB Slaps Back Elon Musk for Union Busting Tweet

Tesla landed itself back in the news last week for yet another dose of negative publicity, courtesy of the quick-tweeting trigger finger of its CEO, Elon Musk. This time, the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”) found Musk to have threatened employees with a loss of stock options if they chose to be represented by the United Auto Workers labor union. The 2018 tweet in question read: “Nothing stopping Tesla team at our car plant from voting union. Could do so tmrw if they wanted. But why pay union dues and give up stock options for nothing? Our safety record is 2X better than when plant was UAW & everybody already gets healthcare.”

Musk’s social media usage has already gotten Tesla into tens of millions of dollars of trouble. His tweet that he was considering taking Tesla private led to artificial investment in Tesla stock, even though the tweet had no basis in fact. The Securities and Exchange Commission fined him and Tesla each $20 million. Musk later said the penalty was “worth it,” speaking volumes about the weakness of the regulatory scheme that is meant to protect against the ultra-wealthy’s abuses of power.

Last week’s NLRB decision represents another agency’s attempt to rein in Musk’s unlawful social media posts. The NLRB ordered Musk and Tesla to stop threatening employees for supporting labor efforts, delete the tweet, place a notice regarding unfair labor practices at the Fremont plant, and place notices about the tweet in all Tesla facilities nationwide. The NLRB decision also reinstated with backpay a Tesla employee who was wrongfully terminated in retaliation for his union activities. Neither Tesla nor Musk will be faced with any penalties other than the employee’s backpay.

Bryan Schwartz Law is no stranger to Tesla and Musk’s unlawful workplace ethos. Since 2017, BSL has been litigating a case against Tesla concerning appalling race harassment at its Fremont factory. The NLRB decision is a positive development for workers, hopefully the start of many changes at the Tesla workplace to protect employees from abuses.

If you have experienced retaliation or discrimination at Tesla, contact Bryan Schwartz Law.

Ashley Judd’s Sexual Harassment Case Against Harvey Weinstein Can Go Forward

Earlier this week, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the district court dismissal of actor Ashley Judd’s sexual harassment claim against former Hollywood producer Harvey Weinstein. The Ninth Circuit opinion allows Judd’s sexual harassment claim to go forward. This decision illustrates how sexual harassment claims are not limited to standard employer/employee or service provider/client relationships.

Judd alleges that she was sexually harassed by Weinstein in 1996 or 1997, when she was starting her acting career and Weinstein was a powerful producer. Judd says Weinstein harassed her during a meeting intended to discuss potential acting opportunities. After she rejected his advances, Judd claims Weinstein prevented her from being cast in movies he produced. Notably, Judd alleges that Weinstein blocked her casting in The Lord of the Rings adaptations in retaliation. In fact, the reason Judd can bring her suit so many years after the usual statute of limitations has passed is because she says did not discover that Weinstein had been retaliating against her until Peter Jackson, who directed, produced, and wrote The Lord of the Rings films, gave an interview in 2017 about Weinstein’s actions against Judd. See Judd v. Weinstein, No. CV 18-5724 PSG (FFMx), 2018 WL 7448914, at *3-5 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 19, 2018). Judd was able to use California’s “discovery rule,” which is an exception to the general rules regarding statutes of limitation. Under the discovery rule, the statute of limitation begins to run not when the injury occurs, but instead when the plaintiff discovers or has reason to discover the cause of action. See No. CV 18-5724 PSG (FFMx), 2018 WL 7448914, at *4.

 

Among other claims, Judd sued Weinstein in April 2018 for sexual harassment in a professional relationship under California Civil Code Section 51.9. While allowing her other claims to go forward, the United States District Court of the Central District of California dismissed Judd’s sexual harassment claim because it believed Judd and Weinstein did not have the requisite type of professional relationship described in section 51.9.

 

Section 51.9 is part of California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act, which prohibits business discrimination on the basis of sex, race, religion, disability, sexual orientation, and other characteristics. Section 51.9 specifically prohibits sexual harassment in a variety of business relationships outside the workplace. Over the years, section 51.9 has been amended to specifically cover producer/actor relationships. However, because the alleged harassment occurred in 1996 or 1997, the court clarifies that it must use the 1996 version of section 51.9.

 

In 1996, as the Ninth Circuit explains, the law required the plaintiff to have a certain type of business, service, or professional relationship with the defendant. The 1996 statute listed examples of the types of professional relationships covered by the law, including those between plaintiffs and physicians, attorneys, social workers, accountants, teachers, real estate agents, landlords, and other specific professions. The statute also covered relationships, “substantially similar to any of the above.” Because the relationship between an actor and a producer was not specifically enumerated in the statute, Judd argued that her professional relationship with Weinstein was substantially similar to those listed. The district court disagreed, holding that the defining characteristic of the enumerated relationships was that they were all between service providers and clients. See No. CV 18-5724 PSG (FFMx), 2018 WL 7448914, at *9. Because Weinstein and Judd did not have a service provider/client relationship, the district court dismissed her claim.

 

Fortunately, the Ninth Circuit agreed with Judd. The Ninth Circuit’s reversal of the district court opinion states that the key element in the enumerated relationships is that, “an inherent power imbalance exists such that, by virtue of his or her ‘business, service, or professional’ position, one party is uniquely situated to exercise coercion or leverage over the other.” Because Judd was an actor at the beginning of her career and Weinstein was an established and powerful Hollywood producer, their relationship may have been defined by an inherent power imbalance. Under the Ninth Circuit’s interpretation of section 51.9, Judd and Weinstein’s professional relationship is potentially covered by the statute and she may pursue her sexual harassment claim. The case has been remanded to the district court.

 

Section 51.9 looks different now than it did in 1996. The statute was amended in 2018 and now explicitly covers sexual harassment by directors, producers, elected officials, and lobbyists, in addition to all of the professions previously specified.

 

In this week’s decision, the Ninth Circuit recognized the importance of protecting people from sexual harassment in a wide variety of contexts. The Unruh Civil Rights Act and section 51.9 are important tools in the fight against injustice.

 

Bryan Schwartz Law has written about sexual harassment, gender discrimination, and retaliation many times before. If you believe you were sexually harassed, discriminated against, or retaliated against, please contact Bryan Schwartz Law.

Workers Sue Whole Foods After Being Disciplined for Wearing Black Lives Matter Masks

Employees of Whole Foods have filed a class action lawsuit against the supermarket for race discrimination and retaliation after they were allegedly disciplined for wearing masks supporting the Black Lives Matter (BLM) Movement. While Whole Foods—owned by Amazon—has always had a corporate policy forbidding workers from wearing slogans or logos that are not company-related, the workers allege that this policy was not enforced until many employees began wearing BLM slogans at work. The lawsuit seeks reimbursement for lost wages and expungement of any disciplinary action for the disciplined workers. It also seeks permanent injunctive relief for all employees, calling for Whole Foods to end its policy of not allowing BLM masks at work.

 

According to the complaint filed in Massachusetts District Court by fifteen workers across five stores, Whole Foods disciplined about 40 employees and fired one employee—Savannah Kinzer—for wearing BLM masks or slogans at work. Employees were sent home or threatened with termination when they wore their BLM masks. Others were written up or placed on a “corrective action pathway,” which requires employees to re-train. Kinzer, in particular, had also organized workers to wear BLM masks. When workers were disciplined, she filed complaints with the National Labor Relations Board and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission but was fired within an hour of informing her manager of the complaints. Whole Food maintains that Kinzer’s termination has no relation to her wearing BLM masks and was due to her repeated violations of Whole Food’s Time & Attendance policy. 

 

The suit alleges that no employees have previously been disciplined for wearing non-work-related slogans, including employees who have worn pins supporting the LGBTQ movement and one employee who wore a pin that said, “Lock him up.” The workers and their lawyers argue that disciplining employees who wear BLM slogans constitutes discrimination against Black employees and other employees who support their Black coworkers. 

 

This lawsuit comes at a time when many companies have broadened their dress code policy to allow workers to wear BLM apparel at work, including Starbucks, McDonald’s, and Taco Bell. Meanwhile, an independent federal agency called the Office of Special Counsel found that federal employees may express support for the BLM Movement in the workplace without violating the Hatch Act, which restricts political activity by government employees, because the term BLM does not amount to “inherently political activity.”

 

Bryan Schwartz Law has written about the Black Lives Matter Movement, race discrimination, and retaliation many times before. If you believe you were discriminated against or retaliated against at work, please contact Bryan Schwartz Law today.

Whistleblowers—Public Heroes in an Uncertain Time for Workplace Safety

This morning, Dr. Rick Bright is testifying on Capitol Hill. Dr. Bright is known for being fired from the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority for opposing the use of a drug falsely touted by Trump as a possible coronavirus treatment. His testimony today, which is in progress during this writing, has emphasized safety measures he believes the federal government should be making to prevent the spread of the deadly disease.

The current COVID-19 pandemic has heightened the importance of whistleblowers such as Dr. Bright reporting workplace safety like never before. Workers who still must report to a physical work site depend on their employers taking serious and effective measures to protect them. While many conscientious employers engage in such safety practices, others have thrown their employees under the bus, forcing them to risk their health for the companies’ profits—literally profiting off the lives of their workers.

Perhaps the most famous heroic COVID-19 whistleblower is China’s Li Wenliang, a doctor who sounded the alarm about the seriousness of the virus in its early days only to be sanctioned by the Chinese government and later die of the illness. Beyond Dr. Bright, the United States has seen its fair share of whistleblowing as well, especially concerning unsafe working conditions. Holding employers accountable for workplace safety is paramount during the pandemic, given that the workplace is one of the places where the virus is most likely to spread. Whistleblowing employees are necessary to bring employer safety inadequacies to light.

But despite the importance of whistleblowing during these times—or perhaps because of it—the government and private companies have fired employees in retaliation for blowing the whistle. Like the federal government's termination of Dr. Bright, Amazon, one of the most powerful and wealthiest companies in the world, fired several warehouse employees, including Staten Island’s Christian Small, for raising concerns about workplace safety and attempting to organize a response. This prompted former Amazon VP Tim Bray to resign “in dismay” because of the company’s decision to fire whistleblowers. Bray noted in an open letter that the six or so whistleblowers who faced retaliation from Amazon at that time were all people of color, women, or both. At the end of the letter, Bray decried power imbalances in the workplace, writing that “warehouse workers are weak and getting weaker…[s]o they’re gonna get treated like crap….” Amazon has profited during the pandemic.

Other employees throughout the country have similarly faced retaliation for raising workplace safety concerns. An emergency room physician in early hard-hit Washington State, Ming Lin, was fired for giving a newspaper interview about his concern that his employer had inadequate testing and protective equipment. Navy aircraft carrier captain Brett Crozier was fired for writing a letter about the Navy’s failure to provide him with sufficient means to combat the virus (he later contracted it). Nurse Lauri Mazurkiewicz was fired for emailing her colleagues that that N-95 masks were more effective at protecting against the disease’s spread than the masks provided by the hospital where she worked, then wearing an N-95 mask to work—she has since filed a lawsuit.

It is especially wrong for employers to retaliate against whistleblowers, given the historic state of unemployment—jobs are precious and hard to come by for terminated whistleblowers trying to feed their families. Now more than ever, whistleblower protection laws are vital, as work environments have become less safe at employment sites where employees’ health is not taken seriously enough. For instance, meat packing plants, deemed essential by the Trump administration and already dangerous working environments even in the absence of COVID-19, are hotbeds for the virus to spread, leading to public concern and at least one federal lawsuit. Nursing homes, especially those who serve indigent or lower-class senior citizens, have been hit hard. Essential retail stores, such as grocery outlets, have also been seen suddenly dangerous working conditions. 

Employees at workplaces like these are understandably concerned about workplace safety. Consequently, thousands of employees have courageously filed workplace safety complaints against their employers related to the coronavirus. These complaints have involved poor safety practices such as failing to provide personal protective equipment like gloves, masks, disinfectant, and cleaning supplies; failing to follow or implement social distancing requirements; forcing employees to work alongside sick co-workers; and requiring employees to report to work on-site in non-essential sectors. Recently, the CDC revised its guidelines to allow asymptomatic workers to continue working, which may lead to further workplace safety issues as asymptomatic carriers infect their coworkers.

Concerned employees can file workplace safety complaints with the federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), the corresponding California state agency Cal/OSHA, or their local county health departments if the county has a separate health order in place. 

Now, more than ever, we need heroes willing to step forward. One of the only good bits of news in this pandemic has been that heroes are emerging like never before to protect their colleagues, themselves, and their families.  

Do not let the fear of unlawful retaliation stop you from blowing the whistle. If you face workplace retaliation for raising safety concerns, contact Bryan Schwartz Law. 

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.

Attorney’s Fees Awarded When Whistleblower Acted in the Public Interest

Have you ever blown the whistle on illegal activity in the workplace and then been retaliated against? Did you have trouble finding a lawyer who would represent you? California protects whistleblowers, but defendants sometimes argue that whistleblower retaliation claims under California Labor Code section 1102.5 (California’s general whistleblower statute) do not require defendant to pay the whistleblower’s attorney’s fees. Attorney’s fees awards are critical to helping whistleblowers get their day in court. Because most people can’t afford to hire an attorney on an hourly basis, laws that allow for the recovery of attorney’s fees allow attorneys to take cases on a contingency basis – the attorney only gets paid if you get paid. An award of attorney’s fees also means that the attorney’s payment doesn’t have to come out of the amount you recover. You get your recovery and the attorney gets her fees, without the attorney having to take her fees out of your recovery (typically at least 1/3 to 40% of your recovery).

Attorney’s fees awards are available under California Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5 where the case involves the enforcement of an important right affecting the public interest if: (1) a significant benefit, monetary or non-monetary, has been conferred on the general public or a large class of persons; (2) the necessity and financial burden of private enforcement, or of enforcement by one public entity against another public entity, are such as to make the award appropriate; and (3) such fees should not in the interest of justice be paid out of any recovery (i.e., the attorneys should not be paid out of what the employee recovers). The question is, does a violation of 1102.5 warrant the recovery of attorney’s fees as outlined in 1021.5? Can whistleblowers recover their attorney’s fees?

The California Court of Appeals recently said yes.

In Hawkins v. City of Los Angeles (2019) 40 Cal.App.5th 384, two employees blew the whistle on illegal activity happening in the City of Los Angeles’ Department of Transportation. Todd Hawkins and Hyung Kim were hearing examiners who reviewed parking violations. When people challenged parking tickets, Mr. Hawkins and Mr. Kim decided whether those people had in fact violated parking laws or if the City had gotten it wrong and needed to issue a refund for the fines they had charged.

Both men complained internally that their supervisor was pressuring them to change decisions from “not liable” to “liable” – in other words, saying people had violated parking laws when they hadn’t and cheating people out of refunds for the fines they had paid. Both men were then fired for speaking up.

They sued for whistleblower retaliation under 1102.5, the California Bane Act, and other claims. They also filed claims with California’s Labor and Workforce Development Agency seeking PAGA (Private Attorneys General Act) penalties. The matter went to a jury trial, and the jury found in the employees’ favor on their 1102.5 and Bane Act claims, awarding Hawkins $238,531 and Kim $188,631 in damages. The trial court then assessed a $20,000 PAGA penalty, and subsequently awarded the employees $1,054,286.88 in attorney’s fees. The City appealed.

The Court of Appeals upheld the jury’s verdict, upholding the award of attorney’s fees for whistleblower retaliation under 1102.5. As the Court explained,

Here, the City argues that a significant benefit was not conferred on the public because all the action did was remedy retaliation for whistleblowing. However, the City ignores the trial court’s finding that the action also conferred a significant public benefit because the public is entitled to fair hearings with respect to parking citations. The Vehicle Code entitles the public to “an independent, objective, fair, and impartial review of contested parking violations.” (Veh. Code, § 40215, subd. (c)(3).) Plaintiffs’ action revealed that, for years, the City had been pressuring, sometimes successfully, hearing examiners to change decisions, usually to find that refunds were not warranted. In short, the public had been deprived of independent and impartial hearings. Instead, the City undermined the process provided by the Vehicle Code to generate revenue.

Mr. Hawkins and Mr. Kim were whistleblowers under 1102.5 who satisfied the requirements under 1021.5 of acting in the public interest, warranting their recovery of attorney’s fees.

                The Court of Appeals also upheld the award for attorney’s fees for Mr. Hawkins’ and Mr. Kim’s PAGA claim. This is a big deal: in an unpublished portion of the opinion, the Court explains that an individual whistleblower under 1102.5 can still be representative of a broader group of people, as required by PAGA, when that individual whistleblower is furthering the public interest. The Court distinguishes another case, Kahn v. Dunn-Edwards Corp. (2018) 19 Cal.App.5th 804, where the plaintiffs’ PAGA claim was denied because it wasn’t representative:

 We express no opinion as to the correctness of Kahn’s holding. Whether correct or not, we do not interpret Kahn so literally as to hold that a plaintiff whose prefiling notice uses the incorrect pronoun—I instead of we and my instead of our—fails to comply with the Labor Code’s administrative procedures. Rather, we must determine whether the prefiling notice, as a totality, gave the requisite notice. Plaintiffs’ prefiling notices are materially different than the notice in Kahn. Their notices referred to complaints that Walton-Joseph had hearing officers change written decisions from not liable to liable. Hawkins referred to Walton-Joseph’s actions “in coercing employees, including Claimant to change their decisions.” (Italics added.) Similarly, Kim referred to another hearing examiner who had complained to government officials about the conduct. Thus, the notices here expressly referred to conduct not limited to the individual complainants. They complained about conduct that impacted them and fellow hearing examiners, as well as the public. We therefore conclude that plaintiffs complied with section 2699.3 [PAGA].

While attorneys cannot cite to the above portion of the Hawkins opinion, it’s worth noting the Court’s implicit suggestion to use the pronoun “we” in PAGA claims to forestall any argument from the defendant employer that the plaintiff does not have a viable PAGA claim.

Hawkins strengthens whistleblower protections, making it more likely that whistleblower cases will be brought to court – and therefore making it more likely that the harms whistleblowers uncover will be remedied. Hawkins will be a key case moving forward to combat public corruption and the silencing of those who dare to speak truth to power.

Bryan Schwartz Law has written about attorney’s fees for whistleblower retaliation and PAGA before. If you believe that you were retaliated against for exposing illegal activity at your workplace, please contact Bryan Schwartz Law today.

California Appellate Court Rules that Victims of Outrageous Workplace Discrimination May Sue Supervisors for Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress

Earlier this month, a the Fourth District Court of Appeals in San Diego ruled that an employee’s claim against a former supervisor for intentional infliction of emotional distress (“IIED”) in connection with discriminatory conduct could proceed and was not barred by the workers’ compensation exclusivity rule. [Link to opinion in Light v. California Department of Parks &Recreation.] The employee Melony Light, a park aide and office assistant for the California Department of Parks and Recreation, alleges that she was subjected to discriminatory treatment by her supervisor Leda Seals, after Light refused to participate in and defend Seals’ ongoing harassment of a co-worker, Delane Hurley, whom Seals believed to be a lesbian. Among other acts (as alleged by Light), Seals subjected Light to ongoing verbal abuse, demanded that Light lie to Human Rights Office investigators about Seals’ treatment of Hurley, and physically intimidated Light. Eventually, the Department eliminated Light’s working hours, in keeping with one of Seals’ threats to Light.

Light sought and received a worker’s compensation award worth nearly $13,000 for anxiety, nausea, loss of appetite, migraines, asthma attacks, body aches and pains, digestive problems, vomiting, severe abdominal cramps, and tightness in the chest. Under the worker’s compensation exclusivity rule, the worker’s compensation system is generally the exclusive remedy for workers injured on the job, whether the injury is physical or psychological. The policy behind the rule is the  “compensation bargain,” under which the employer assumes no-fault liability for workplace injuries, granting the employee relatively swift and certain compensation, but limiting the range of tort remedies available.

But the exclusivity rule is not absolute and, relevant here, a line of cases developed which established that employees may sue employers for IIED where the actionable conduct also violates the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”). These cases established that discriminatory acts fall outside the normal risks inherent to the employment relationship, and thus do not fall within the worker’s compensation bargain. See, e.g., Nazir v. United Airlines, Inc. (2009) 178 Cal.App.4th 243, 288 (“A claim for distress arising out of employment is not barred where the distress is engendered by an employer’s illegal discrimination practices.”). This FEHA exception recognizes that discrimination in the workplace is an exceptional injury, for which the worker’s compensation system alone cannot make an employee whole.

However, the viability of the FEHA exception to the exclusivity rule was placed in doubt by another recent ruling of the Fourth District in Yau v. Santa Margarita Ford., Inc. (2014) 229 Cal.App.4th 144, which concluded – without mention of FEHA – that the only viable exception to the exclusivity rule is for workplace injuries incident to a claim for wrongful termination in violation of public policy (also known as Tameny claims). The Yau court took the position that the California Supreme Court had severely limited the ability of employees to bring intentional infliction of emotional distress claims in Miklosy v. Regents (2008) 44 Cal.4th 876 , but the Court in Light concluded that its sister appellate panel had misread Miklosy, which involved an intentional infliction of emotional distress claim in the context of whistleblower retaliation and did not discuss FEHA.

 The opinion, authored by Justice Judith McConnell, also rejected the notion that an employee cannot bring an IIED claim against a supervisor, because FEHA does not permit claims against supervisors, finding that an IIED claim is not merely a different rubric to recover for a FEHA (or other workplace violation), but “is a substantively different claim, aimed at a different wrong, and protects a different interest.” In that regard, an IIED claim entails: (1) extreme and outrageous conduct by the defendant, with the intention of causing, or reckless disregard of the probability of causing, emotional distress; (2) the plaintiff’s suffering severe or extreme emotional distress; and (3) actual and proximate causation. IIED claims thus impose a high bar – and although not all FEHA cases will involve extreme and outrageous conduct by an individual supervisor or manager, many cases will.

The opinion further took aim at the trial court’s conclusion that Light had failed to raise triable issues of material fact as to any adverse employment action sufficient to support a claim for retaliation under FEHA at the summary judgment stage. Justice McConnell noted that Seals had explicitly threatened Light, telling her that she would be moved to a different workplace or terminated if she did not lie to the Human Rights Office. Then, when Light failed to follow orders, her scheduled hours were eliminated. Moreover, Light had been denied training and passed over for promotions. The Fourth District thus concluded that the trial court had erred and that Light’s FEHA retaliation claim could proceed.

In sum, while Light did not introduce the FEHA exception to the worker’s compensation exclusivity rule, the holding establishes its continued viability after Miklosy and Yau. Moreover, because Miklosy and Yau did not involve FEHA claims, Light does not create a direct conflict with those prior cases, making it unnecessary for the Supreme Court to resolve the tension between these lines of cases. Light provides clear encouragement to employees and their advocates to pursue IIED claims against individual managers and supervisors for discriminatory and outrageous conduct, in addition to FEHA claims against the employer. It also sends a clear message to employers that discrimination is not a “normal” part of the employment relationship, even if it is all too common, and that the risk to employers, managers, and supervisors of failing to prevent or take action against discriminatory conduct are substantial.

California Courts Split on Exhausting Whistleblower Claims Under Labor Code

Better to exhaust than be sorry.

This week, California’s Third Appellate District issued a decision dealing with whistleblower-retaliation claims under Labor Code that begs for a judicial or legislative response. In MacDonald v. State of California, Case No.C069646, the court held that an employee must exhaust the administrative remedy set forth in section 98.7 before filing suit in superior court for retaliatory discharge in violation of Labor Code sections 1102.5 and 6310. The court recognized that its decision directly and deliberately conflicts with the Second Appellate District’s decision in Lloyd v. County of Los Angeles (2009) 172 Cal. App. 4th 320, which holds that no such requirement exists.

Labor Code section 98.7 provides a statutory scheme that allows any person to file a complaint with the Labor Commissioner if that person “believes that he or she has been discharged or otherwise discriminated against in violation of any law under the jurisdiction of the Labor Commissioner.” The plain language of the code is discretionary, allowing that an aggrieved employee “may file a complaint” within six months of the alleged adverse action.

Over the years, federal district courts have taken conflicting positions on whether an employee who has been a victim of whistleblower retaliation under section 1102.5 must first file a complaint with the Labor Commissioner under section 98.7. See MacDonald, Slip op. 6, n.4. But federal courts can only speak persuasively regarding the requirements of California Law.

Some employees and their counsel have treated the complaint process as permissive, and for good reason. In 2007, the DLSE issued an opinion letter advising that: “The DLSE’s position is that the wiser course is not to require exhaustion of Labor Code section 98.7 procedures prior to raising a statutory claim in a civil action.” Later, in Lloyd v. County of Los Angeles (2009) 172 Cal. App. 4th 320, the Second Appellate District held that “[t]here is no requirement that a plaintiff pursue the Labor Code administrative procedure prior to pursuing a statutory cause of action” for retaliation; rather, section 98.7 “merely provides the employee with an additional remedy, which the employee may choose to pursue.”

According to the court in MacDonald, the Second Appellate District got it wrong in Lloyd (and by extension, so did the DLSE in its 2007 opinion letter), by failing to consider Campbell v. Regents of University of California (2005) 25 Cal.4th 311. The Third Appellate District held:

The rule of exhaustion of administrative remedies is well established in California jurisprudence. “In brief, the rule is that where an administrative remedy is provided by statute, relief must be sought from the administrative body and this remedy exhausted before the courts will act.” (Campbell, supra, 35 Cal.4th at p. 321, quoting Abelleira [v. District Court of Appeal (1941)] 17 Cal.2d [280], 292). This is so even where the administrative remedy is couched in permissive, as opposed to mandatory, language. (See Williams v. Housing Authority of Los Angeles (2004) 121 Cal.App.4th 708, 734.) Here, an administrative remedy is provided in section 98.7. Thus, in accordance with Campbell, we conclude that plaintiff was required to exhaust that remedy prior to pursuing the underlying action.

Slip op. at 6.

With conflicting decisions in the Third and Second Appellate Divisions, cautious employees and counsel will take care to file a complaint with the Labor Commissioner before they consider filing section 1102.5 or 6310 claims in court. The DLSE can expect to process an increased volume of retaliation complaints going forward.

The Supreme Court or the State Legislature would be wise to speak decisively on the issue of exhaustion raised by MacDonald and Lloyd, as well as related issues arising from the conflict, so as to provide clarity for employees, lower courts, and the DLSE.

NOTE: Nothing in this posting is intended to provide legal advice about your particular case and it does not form an attorney-client relationship with any reader. It is intended to be information about a subject of general interest for the general public. In order for Bryan Schwartz Law to represent you, you must have a signed representation agreement with the firm.