November 2013 California Employment Law Notes

Employer Was Entitled To "Substantial Motivating Factor" Jury Instruction Alamo v. Practice Mgmt. Info. Corp., 219 Cal. App. 4th 466 (2013)

In one of the first appellate opinions to consider the new jury instructions required for employment discrimination cases as set forth by the California Supreme Court in Harris v. City of Santa Monica, 56 Cal. 4th 203 (2013), the Court of Appeal reversed a judgment in favor of the plaintiff in this pregnancy discrimination case. The trial court had erroneously instructed the jury that the plaintiff had to prove her pregnancy-related leave of absence was "a motivating reason" for her discharge and not a "substantial motivating reason" as required by Harris. The Court further held, however, that the employer in this case was not entitled to an instruction on the mixed-motive or same-decision defense (i.e., that the employer would have made the same decision in the absence of a discriminatory or retaliatory motive) because the employer had failed to plead that defense or any other affirmative defense alleging that it had a legitimate, non-discriminatory and non-retaliatory reason for its discharge decision.

Employee Who Donated Kidney Could Proceed With Association-Based Disability Discrimination Claim Rope v. Auto-Chlor Sys. Of Wash., Inc., 2013 WL 5631616 (Cal. Ct. App. 2013)

When he was hired in September 2010, Scott Rope informed his new employer (Auto-Chlor) that he planned to donate a kidney to his physically disabled sister and requested paid leave to do so under the then-newly enacted (but not yet effective) Donation Protection Act ("DPA"), Cal. Lab. Code § 1508, et seq. Despite receiving satisfactory performance reviews, Rope was terminated on December 30, 2010, two days before the DPA became effective. Rope sued Auto-Chlor on a variety of theories, and the trial court sustained the employer's general demurrers and dismissed the action. The Court of Appeal reversed in part, holding that Rope could proceed with his claims for association-based disability discrimination, failure to maintain a discrimination-free workplace, and wrongful termination in violation of public policy. The Court affirmed dismissal of Rope's claim under the DPA because his employment was terminated before the statute became effective on January 1, 2011.

Employer Was Not Liable For Employee's Negligent Driving Halliburton Energy Servs., Inc. v. Dept. of Transp., 220 Cal. App. 4th 87 (2013)

Halliburton provided Troy Martinez with a company vehicle to use in the execution of his duties. After completing a day's work, Martinez drove to Bakersfield with his family to purchase a car for his wife. The trip to Bakersfield exceeded his normal commute by approximately 140 miles (Martinez had traveled to Bakersfield for work in the past). After leaving the dealership, Martinez struck a vehicle, injuring the six plaintiffs. The six injured plaintiffs sued Halliburton, Martinez, and others. The trial court granted Halliburton's motion...