California Employment Law Notes - September 2013

Employer May Be Liable For Death Resulting From Drunk Employee's Automobile Accident

Purton v. Marriott Int'l, Inc., 218 Cal. App. 4th 499 (2013)

In December 2009, the Marriott Del Mar Hotel held its annual holiday party as a "thank you" to its employees and management. Marriott did not require its employees to attend the party. Michael Landri was employed as a bartender at the hotel. Landri, who did not work on the day of the party, drank a beer and a shot of Jack Daniel's whiskey at home before arriving at the party; Landri took a flask to the party, which he estimated held about five ounces, filled to some degree with whiskey. Landri re-filled his flask with more whiskey from the bar at least once (but possibly more than once) during the party. At approximately 9:00 p.m., Landri left the party and drove (or was driven) home. Landri did not drink any more after leaving the party. After arriving home safely, Landri decided to get back on the road to drive another intoxicated co-worker to the co-worker's house. During the second trip, Landri (who had a blood alcohol level of 0.16) drove over 100 miles per hour and rear-ended Dr. Jared Purton's vehicle, killing Dr. Purton. The trial court granted Marriott's motion for summary judgment on the ground that Landri was not acting within the scope of his employment at the time of the accident, but the Court of Appeal reversed the judgment, holding that "a trier of fact could conclude the party and drinking of alcoholic beverages benefitted Marriott by improving employee morale and furthering employer-employee relations... [and] that Landri was acting within the scope of his employment while ingesting alcoholic beverages at the party." The fact that Landri had arrived home safely before venturing out again did not cut off Marriott's liability as a matter of law. Compare Rayii v. Gatica, 2013 WL 4446778 (Cal. Ct. App. 2013) (judgment affirmed where jury determined negligent driver was not acting within the course and scope of his employment at the time of the accident).

Prevailing Employer Entitled To Recover Its Costs In Discrimination Case

Williams v. Chino Valley Indep. Fire Dist., 218 Cal. App. 4th 73 (2013)

Loring Winn Williams sued the Fire District for disability discrimination under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act. The Fire District succeeded in getting the case dismissed on summary judgment - after filing a successful petition for writ of mandate when the motion was initially denied. The Fire District subsequently filed a memorandum of costs, and the trial court awarded the Fire District $5,368.88 in costs pursuant to Code of Civ. Proc. § 1032(b). On appeal, Williams asserted that no costs should have been awarded because his discrimination claim - though unsuccessful - was not "frivolous, unreasonable, or groundless." The Court of Appeal affirmed the award of costs to the employer on the ground that "ordinary costs are obtainable by the prevailing defendant as a matter of right, and they are not subject to [the standard set forth in] Christiansburg Garment Co...