Recent California Court Decisions

WWII Slave Labor Law Ruled Unconstitutional
Taiheiyo Cement Corporation v. Superior Court

Code of Civil Procedure § 354.6 allows certain persons who were "slave labor" during World War II to sue for their personal injuries and value of their labor. The plaintiff was a California resident who during WW II was a Korean national forced to work in a Japanese labor camp.

The court held that the law is unconstitutional because it conflicts with federal policies embodied in the 1951 treaty that formally ended the war with Japan.

More information for premium subscribers ...

Filing False Business Documents with State a Felony
People v. Powers

A person can be convicted of a felony if as part of their business activities they file a false document with the state.

The operators of a commercial fishing boat filed false reports with the government that did not correctly identify the number of fish caught. Felony prosecutions were sought on the grounds that a Penal Statute (section 115) made it a felony to file false instruments to a public office.

The court of appeal upheld the pursuit of a felony, finding that even though fishing logs are not publicly available documents, and although "mundane" the logs provide important information to the state, the law is now construed broadly and a felony conviction can be sought for filing a false document with the state.

More information for premium subscribers ...

Businesses Liable for Sexual Harassment by Customers
Salazar v. Diversified Paratransit

The plaintiff was a bus driver for company assisting developmentally disabled persons who was sexually harassed on a repeated basis by one of the customers. Her initial lawsuit was dismissed when the court of appeals held that she could not sue her employer for harassment committed by a customer. Her case was appealed to the Supreme Court. In response to the court decision, the Legislature enacted a statute specifying that an employer can be liable to an employee for customer caused harassment. In response to the Legislative action the Supreme Court sent the case back to the appellate court.

The appellate court then held that the statute merely codified existing law (and thus the court's original opinion was wrong) and the plaintiff could sue for harassment by a customer even though the harassment occurred before the statute was enacted.

More information for premium subscribers ...

Employees Cannot Recover Attorney's Fees Incurred During Labor Commissioner Hearings
Sampson v. Parking Service 2000 Com, Inc.

If an employee makes a claim for unpaid overtime wages, the claim can either be first made before the Labor Commission or in a lawsuit in court. The Labor Commissioner's claims may then be appealed and decided by the court.

A prevailing employee cannot recover attorney's fees from the Labor Commissioner, but they can from the court. If an action initiated before the Labor Commissioner is appealed and decided by the court, the only attorney's fees that can be recovered are those spent before the court. Fees incurred during the administrative proceeding are not recoverable.

More information for premium subscribers ...

Property Tax Increases are Based on Initial Property Assessment and Not Reduced Valuations in Down Years
County of Orange v. Bezaire

Increases in property tax values under Proposition 13 inflation factor are based on the initial value of the property when acquired, and not any subsequent decreases or amount of the prior year assessment.

In 1995 property was acquired for $330,000 and valued at that amount for 1996. It did not appreciate in value in 1997. In 1998 property values did increase, and it was valued for tax purposes at $343,332, which is a 2 percent increase for 1997 and 2 percent for 1998, for 4 percent more than the prior year. The court held that this was the proper valuation.

More information for premium subscribers ...

Arbitration Clauses May Preclude Some Labor Commissioner Claims
Ralphs v. Massie

An employee filed a discrimination complaint with the California Labor Commissioner. The employer sued to stop the Labor Commissioner from taking action because of an arbitration agreement the employee had signed.

The trial court held that filing an administrative claim does not trigger the contractual right to arbitrate.

The court of appeal reversed, ruling that the trial court must (1) determine if a valid arbitration agreement exists, and if valid (2) determine if the Federal Arbitration Act requires arbitration of administrative discrimination complaints and preempts the state administrative proceedings.

To provide guidance to the trial court, the court of appeals noted that the State of California has an interest in pursing administrative remedies and this does not conflict with arbitration. However, the Federal Arbitration Act may preempt the administrative claim if the employee could obtain the same relief in arbitration. There is no preemption of Labor Commissioner remedies that are not specific to the employee and the state is not precluded from exercising its rights to protect employees. The question is whether remedies by the Labor Commissioner go beyond those generally available in arbitration.

More information for premium subscribers ...

Businesses Can Indirectly Discriminate Based on Sexual Orientation if Policies Based on Marital Status
Koebke v. Bernardo Heights Country Club

Lesbians and registered domestic partners sued for discrimination when they were not allowed the same membership privileges offered to married heterosexual couples.

The court held that the business was not unlawfully discriminating based on gender or sexual orientation, only marital status. Discrimination based on martial status does not violate the Unruh Act.

However, the business may be liable for applying its membership bylaws in a discriminatory manner by granting privileges to unmarried, heterosexual couples and not to unmarried homosexual couples.

The court rejected the claim that there was liability due to the policies having a disparate impact against homosexuals because they cannot marry.

More information for premium subscribers ...

Subscriptions are easily and securely made with all major credit cards or checking accounts.

Subscriptions are less than a dollar a day, cancellable anytime, and permit access to
ALL premium content for ALL topics and ALL legal forms!