Employment Law Notes

• Jurisdiction: California,United States
• Author: By Anthony J. Oncidi
• Publication year: 2014
• Citation: Vol. 28 No. 6

Employment Law 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.)

Franchisor Is Not Liable for Franchisee's Alleged Sexual Harassment of Its Employee

Patterson v. Domino's Pizza, LLC, 60 Cal. 4th 474 (2014)

Sui Juris, a franchisee of Domino's Pizza, hired plaintiff Taylor Patterson to serve customers at its store. Patterson alleged that she was sexually harassed by Renee Miranda, an adult male who held the title of assistant manager of the Sui Juris store. In her complaint, Patterson alleged that she and Miranda were employed by Domino's Pizza (the franchisor). Domino's filed a motion for summary judgment on the grounds that the franchise contract stated there was no "principal and agent" relationship between it and the franchisee and Domino's disclaimed "any relationship with Sui Juris's employees" and assumed "no rights, duties, or responsibilities" as to their employment. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Domino's, but the court of appeal reversed. In this 4-to-3 opinion, the Supreme Court of California reversed the court of appeal and reinstated summary judgment in favor of Domino's on the ground that "the imposition and enforcement of a uniform marketing and operational plan cannot automatically saddle the franchisor with responsibility for employees of the franchisee who injure each other on the job."

Police Officer's ADHD Was Not a Disability Within the Meaning of the ADA

Weaving v. City of Hillsboro, 763 F.3d 1106 (9th Cir. 2014)

Matthew Weaving worked as a police officer for the City of Hillsboro for approximately three years before the City terminated his employment due to "severe interpersonal problems" between him and other employees of the police department. Weaving contended that his interpersonal problems resulted from his attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and that his termination violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). After the case went to a jury, which found in Weaving's favor, the City filed a motion for judgment as a matter of law based on insufficient evidence to support the verdict. The district court denied the City's motion, but the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed, holding that a jury could not reasonably have concluded that Weaving's ADHD substantially limited his ability to work or interact with others and, therefore, he was not disabled within the meaning of the ADA.

Alleged Whistleblower Could Proceed With Wrongful Termination Claim

Yau v. Santa Margarita Ford, Inc., 229 Cal. App. 4th 144 (2014)

Eddie Yau, a service manager for Santa Margarita Ford, alleged that the Ford dealership terminated his employment after he complained to his general manager and the owner of the Ford dealership that fraudulent warranty repair claims were being submitted to Ford. Yau alleged that his termination implicated state statutes proscribing theft and fraud...