Employment Law Case Notes

• Jurisdiction: California,United States
• Author: By Anthony J. Oncidi
• Publication year: 2014
• Citation: Vol. 28 No. 1

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 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 Supreme Court of California 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. The case underscores the importance of employers pleading legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for challenged employment terminations as a specific affirmative defense in their Answers.

Employee Who Donated Kidney Could Proceed With Association-Based Disability Discrimination Claim

Rope v. Auto-Chlor Sys. of Wash., Inc., 220 Cal. App. 4th 635 (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, Auto-Chlor terminated Rope's employment 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 the dismissal of Rope's claim under the DPA because Auto-Chlor terminated his employment before the statute...