Employment Law Case Notes

• Citation: Vol. 33 No. 2
• Publication year: 2019
• 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.]

School Teacher's ADA Claim Against Catholic School Was Not Barred by "Ministerial Exception"

Biel v. St. fames School, 911 F.3d 603 (9th Cir. 2018)

Kristen Biel was fired from her fifth grade teaching position at St. James Catholic School after she told the school that she had breast cancer and would need to miss work to undergo chemotherapy. Following her termination, Biel alleged that the school had violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The district court dismissed Biel's lawsuit on the ground that it was barred by the First Amendment's "ministerial exception" to generally applicable employment laws such as the ADA. The Ninth Circuit reversed, holding that under the totality of the circumstances test, the ministerial exception did not bar Biel's claims because she did not qualify as a minister of the Catholic Church.

City Attorney Should Not Have Been Disqualified From Representing City

City of San Diego v. Superior Court, 30 Cal. App. 5th 457 (2018)

As part of an internal affairs investigation regarding the unauthorized disclosure of a confidential police report, the San Diego Police Department questioned detective Dana Hoover regarding communications she had had with an attorney who was representing her in an employment-related lawsuit against the city. Although Hoover invoked the attorney-client privilege, the Department directed her to answer the questions or face discipline and/or termination of employment. The trial court concluded that the city violated the attorney-client privilege and that a deputy city attorney violated the California State Bar Rules of Professional Conduct by questioning Hoover about her lawsuit without the permission of her lawyer. The court of appeal held, however, that the trial court erred when it granted Hoover's motion to disqualify the city attorney in view of the fact that none of the information that Hoover disclosed would have a "substantial continuing effect on future judicial proceedings."

Prevailing Employer Should Not Have Been Awarded § 998 Costs

Huerta...