2006 Employment Law Cases Affecting Employers in 2007

The following article is a listing of pertinent cases in 2006 that will have an affect on employers in the upcoming year, 2007. Listed in the article is the case name and a brief outline of the courts rulings in those cases . These cases cover a wide range of topics, from civil rights violations to sexually explicit material on employee computers.

Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Ry v. White—The United States Supreme Court considered the types of employer actions that can constitute retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and adopted a subjective rule, allowing retaliation claims to be based upon any employer action that ‘would have been materially adverse to an employee or applicant’ and can include actions that could dissuade a reasonable working from making or supporting a charge of discrimination.

Ash v. Tyson Foods—The United States Supreme Court held that use of the term ‘boy’ along may be evidence of racial discrimination depending on the context of the remark.

United States v. Ziegler—The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that an employee who had viewed child pornography on his work computer did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in his office or computer.

Deveraturda v. Globe Aviation Sec. Servs.—The Ninth Circuit held that the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (‘WARN Act’) does not apply to privately-employed employees who were laid-off as a result of a government-ordered mass layoff.

Jespersen v. Harrah’s Operating Co.—The Ninth Circuit held that an employer did not violate Title VII of the Civil Rights Act by requiring certain female employees to wear make-up. While such appearance standards ‘may well be the subject of a Title VII claim for sexual stereotyping,' the court found, the worker in this case failed to prove that there was a stereotypical motive on the part of her employer in adopting the policy.

Cornwell v. Electra Cent. Credit Union—The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that an African-American employee may rely on circumstantial evidence to proceed with his race discrimination claim under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.

Dore v. Arnold Worldwide, Inc.—The California Supreme Court dismissed a lawsuit brought by a worker who claimed he could be discharged only for cause. According to the court, the offer letter signed by the worker was unambiguous. Moreover, the court held that the term ‘at will’ in the letter can be reasonably interpreted to mean ‘at any time without cause.

Smith v. Superior Court—The California Supreme Court held that employees hired for a specific assignment or a specific amount of time are deemed discharged at the conclusion of their service and are, therefore, entitled to immediate final payment of wages under California Labor Code §201 as if they had been terminated.

Carter v. Cal. Dep’t of Veterans Affairs—The California Supreme Court ruled that an amendment to the FEHA holding employers liable for harassment committed by non-employees should be applied retroactively. As a result, the court reinstated a lawsuit brought by an employee who claimed that she had been subjected to a hostile work environment created by one of her patients.

Lyle v. Warner Bros. TV Prods.—The California Supreme Court held that sexually coarse and vulgar language used regularly in the writers’ room of a popular television situation comedy did not create a hostile work environment under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act.

Dunbar v. Albertson’s, Inc.—The California Court of Appeal upheld the denial of a grocery manager’s motion for class certification in an overtime case. It found that the trial court applied proper criteria in concluding that a lack of commonality existed, where predominating issues involved what tasks were performed by managers individually and for how long.

Gelfo v. Lockheed Martin Corp.—The California Court of Appeal reinstated a lawsuit brought by an employee who claimed that he was denied a reasonable accommodation in violation of the FEHA. According to the court, an employer must engage in the ‘interactive process’ with and reasonably accommodate individuals who are not actually disabled but merely ‘regarded as’ disabled.

Stamps v. Superior Court—The California Court of Appeal held that an employee who claimed that he had been subjected to retaliation, violence, and intimidation by threat of violence on the job may bring a cause of action under the California Civil Code. According to the court, the statute does not expressly ‘exclude employment discrimination or other employment cases from [its] ambit.’

In 2007, we are keeping an eye on…

Murphy v. Kenneth Cole Productions—this case will decide (1) is a claim under Labor Code §226.7 for the required payment of "one additional hour of pay at the employee's regular rate of compensation" for each day that an employer fails to provide mandatory meal or rest periods to an employee governed by the three-year statute of limitations for a claim for payment of a penalty (Code Civ. Proc., § 338) or the one-year statute of limitations for a claim for payment of a penalty (Code Civ. Proc., §340)? (2) when an employee obtains an award on such a wage claim in an administrative proceeding and the employee seeks de novo review in superior court, can the employee pursue additional wage claims not presented in the administrative proceeding?