Employment Law Case Notes

• Publication year: 2018
• Author: By Anthony J. Oncidi

Employment Law Case Notes

By Anthony J. Oncidi

Anthony J. Oncidi is a partner in and the Chair of the Labor and Employment Department of Proskauer Rose LLP in Los Angeles, where he exclusively represents employers and management in all areas of employment and labor law. His telephone number is (310) 284-5690 and his email address is aoncidi@proskauer.com. (Tony has authored this column without interruption for every issue of this publication since 1990.)

Employer Was Not Liable for Marital Status Discrimination or Failure to Investigate

Nakai v. Friendship House Ass'n of Am. Indians, Inc., 15 Cal. App. 5th 32 (2017)

Orlando Nakai was employed for over twenty years by Friendship House, a drug and alcohol rehabilitation program providing treatment services to Native Americans. His employment was terminated by the program's CEO (who also happened to be his mother-in-law) after his wife informed the CEO that Nakai had a gun and was angry at Friendship House employees, and that she had obtained a restraining order against him. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Friendship House, and the court of appeal affirmed, holding that Nakai was "treated differently not because he was married, but because he happened to be married to the CEO's daughter—a political problem, not a marital discrimination problem. Further, Nakai failed to show that the employer's stated reasons for the termination—the gun and the TRO, etc.—were a pretext for marital status discrimination. Finally, the court held that Friendship House was not contractually or statutorily required to conduct an investigation prior to terminating Nakai's employment, which was terminable at will.

Whistleblower's Claim Should Not Have Been Dismissed

Levi v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal., 15 Cal. App. 5th 892 (2017)

Dr. Leah Levi, a neuro-ophthalmologist, alleged retaliation under California's Whistleblower Protection Act against the University, her former employer. Dr. Levi alleged that her supervisor (Dr. Robert Weinreb) had a conflict of interest related to his wife's position in the department for which he served as vice chair. Dr. Levi alleged that Dr. Weinreb had retaliated against her because he thought she was a whistleblower with regard to the conflict of interest issue. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the employer, but the court of appeal reversed, holding that Dr. Levi's complaints about Dr. Weinreb's conflict of interest "implicated policies that have the force and...