California Employment Law Notes - September 2014

Franchisor Is Not Liable For Franchisee's Alleged Sexual Harassment Of Its Employee

Patterson v. Domino's Pizza, LLC, 2014 WL 4236175 (Cal. S. Ct. 2014)

Taylor Patterson was hired by Sui Juris (a franchisee of Domino's Pizza) to serve customers at its store. Patterson alleged that she was sexually harassed by Renee Miranda, an adult male who held the title of assistant manager of the Sui Juris store. In her complaint, Patterson alleged that she and Miranda were employed by Domino's (the franchisor). Domino's filed a motion for summary judgment on the grounds that the franchise contract stated there was no "principal and agent" relationship between it and the franchisee and Domino's disclaimed "any relationship with Sui Juris's employees" and assumed "no rights, duties, or responsibilities" as to their employment. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Domino's, but the court of appeal reversed. In this (4-to-3) opinion, the California Supreme Court reversed the court of appeal and reinstated summary judgment in favor of Domino's on the ground that "the imposition and enforcement of a uniform marketing and operational plan cannot automatically saddle the franchisor with responsibility for employees of the franchisee who injure each other on the job." See also Carlton v. Dr. Pepper Snapple Group, Inc., 2014 WL 3955885 (Cal. Ct. App. 2014) (breach of contract action filed against employer by male employee who was terminated after showing sexually explicit photo to a female employee was properly dismissed).

Employer Properly Deducted Hours From Exempt Employee's Leave Bank

Rhea v. General Atomics, 227 Cal. App. 4th 1560 (2014)

Lori Rhea is an exempt employee of General Atomics who receives a salary and accrues comprehensive annual leave ("Annual Leave") that can be used by employees to take paid time off for any reason, including vacation, sickness, medical appointments, family obligations and leisure pursuits. The amount of Annual Leave that accrues depends on the employee's length of service and ranges from 15 to 32 days per year. General Atomics' policy has been to deduct from Annual Leave for partial-day absences of any length - though an employee who is absent for a full or partial day is not required to use Annual Leave if during the same week the employee works a total of 40 hours. Rhea filed this putative class action on behalf of herself and other exempt employees who were subject to Annual Leave deductions for partial-day absences of less than four hours. The trial court granted General Atomics' summary judgment motion on the ground that California law does not prohibit requiring exempt employees to use Annual Leave for partial-day absences of any length. The Court of Appeal affirmed, holding that the policy did not create an illegal forfeiture and that prior case law does not limit such deductions to instances in which the partial-day absence is at least four hours in duration.

Police Officer's ADHD Was Not A Disability Within The Meaning Of The ADA

Weaving v. City of Hillsboro, 2014 WL 3973411 (9th Cir. 2014)

Matthew Weaving worked as a police officer for the City of Hillsboro for approximately three years before his employment was terminated due to "severe interpersonal problems" between him and other employees of the police...