Employment Law Case Notes

• Jurisdiction: California,United States
• Author: By Anthony J. Oncidi*
• Publication year: 2014
• Citation: Vol. 28 No. 5

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.)

Employee's Refusal to Sign Disciplinary Notice Did Not Disqualify Him from Unemployment Benefits

Paratransit, Inc. v. CUIAB, 59 Cal. 4th 551 (2014)

Craig Medeiros worked as a vehicle operator for Paratransit for six years. Paratransit investigated a complaint filed by a passenger, alleging that Medeiros had unlawfully harassed her. Following the investigation, Paratransit concluded that the alleged misconduct had occurred and decided to suspend Medeiros for two days without pay. Medeiros denied the misconduct and refused to sign a memorandum documenting the discipline (but not admitting guilt), stating his belief that by signing the memorandum he would be admitting guilt. Paratransit subsequently terminated Medeiros for insubordination due to his refusal to sign the disciplinary notice. While the lower courts found that Medeiros had engaged in misconduct by deliberately disobeying Paratransit's lawful and reasonable instruction to sign the disciplinary notice, the Supreme Court of California reversed, holding that Medeiros was not disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits. The supreme court concluded that Medeiros "acted out of a genuine belief that signing the notice would be an admission of allegations he disputed, and that belief was not so unreasonable under the circumstances as to constitute [gross] misconduct within the meaning of the [California Unemployment Insurance Code]."

Employee Was Properly Limited to Just One Theory of Age Discrimination at Trial

Rosenfeld v. Abraham Joshua Heschel Day Sch., Inc., 226 Cal. App. 4th 886 (2014)

Ruth Rosenfeld sued the day school where she had worked as a teacher for thirty-five years after the school reduced her hours and allegedly forced her to resign. Rosenfeld asserted that age discrimination was a motivating factor in the reduction of her hours, but the school asserted that it reduced Rosenfeld's hours because of a decline in student enrollment. Shortly after Rosenfeld's resignation, another teacher who was in her mid-fifties (slightly younger than...