AUTHOR*
Anthony J. Oncidi
Hoglund v. Sierra Nev. Memorial-Miners Hosp., 102 Cal. App. 5th 56 (2024)
Following a bench trial, the trial court found in favor of Jessica Hoglund, a former laboratory supervisor who supervised all of the phlebotomists at the hospital where she was employed. Hoglund, age 56, alleged her former supervisor, Rhonda Horne, who was six years younger than she, had harassed and discriminated against her because of her age. The trial court awarded Hoglund $881,800 in economic damages (lost wages) and $550,000 in noneconomic, emotional distress damages. The trial court also awarded Hoglund more than $1 million in prevailing-party attorney's fees and costs.
The court of appeal affirmed, holding that the continuing violation doctrine applied and, therefore, the statute of limitations did not bar Hoglund's claims even though the alleged unlawful conduct began in 2011 and Hoglund did not file her administrative complaint until 2018. The court also rejected the employer/hospital's contention that the verdict was not supported by substantial evidence, citing "copious evidence of Horne's age discrimination" against Hoglund.
The court of appeal also upheld attorneys' fees and costs of more than $1 million-including a multiplier enhancement of 1.5 to the attorneys' fees—finding contingent risks, and preclusion of other employment justified the multiplier enhancement. As to costs, the court further ruled that the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) permits the trial court to award costs beyond those identified in California Civil Code section 1033.5 in the court's discretion.
NOTE: This opinion was partially published; only the attorney fees discussion was certified for publication.
Al Shikha v. Lyft, Inc., 102 Cal. App. 5th 14 (2024)
While working as a Lyft driver, Abdu Lkader Al Shikha was stabbed by a passenger in a "sudden and unprovoked attack." Al Shikha sued Lyft for negligence based on its failure to conduct criminal background checks on all passengers. The trial court granted Lyft's motion for judgment on the pleadings, and the court of appeal affirmed dismissal of the complaint after concluding that conducting criminal background checks on all passengers would be "highly burdensome" to Lyft and that the type of harm Al Shikha suffered was not "highly foreseeable."
Paleny v. Fireplace Products U.S., Inc., 103 Cal. App. 5th 199 (2024)
Erika Paleny alleged she experienced harassment, discrimination and retaliation after informing her manager at Fireplace Products that she would be undergoing oocyte retrieval procedures so she could donate and freeze her eggs for potential use in the future. Paleny claimed that her manager at Fireplace Products disproved of the reproductive measures she sought and harassed her for requesting time off to secure them. She claimed she was terminated after requesting additional time off for medical appointments related to the procedures.
The trial court granted the employer's motion for summary judgment on the ground that the egg retrieval and freezing procedures do not qualify as a "pregnancy-related medical condition or disability" and were therefore not protected by the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA).1 The court of appeal affirmed dismissal on summary judgment,
[Page 6]
holding that because Paleny was not pregnant or disabled by pregnancy or suffering from a medical condition related to pregnancy, she was not protected by FEHA.
Perez v. Barrick Goldstrike Mines, Inc., 105 F. 4th 1222 (9th Cir. 2024)
Thomas Perez, who worked as an underground haul truck driver for Barrick, alleged he was terminated in violation of the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA)2 after he took a leave of absence following an injury he allegedly suffered while on the job. An on-site emergency medical technician did not observe any outward signs of injury to Perez, or abnormalities in his X-rays or in the functioning of his heart or lungs. However, because Perez claimed he was suffering from severe pain, the doctor certified that he remain off work for five days and then, later, for another 11 days. After Barrick investigated the accident, it found no physical evidence that Perez's truck had collided with the side of the mine as Perez had claimed and received information from another employee that "Perez was feigning a work-related injury to take time off to fix his rental properties." The jury returned a verdict in favor of Barrick, finding that Perez had not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that he suffered a serious health condition or that he was terminated for seeking protected leave.
Perez argued on appeal that the district court should have instructed the jury that the only proper way for Barrick to challenge the medical certification that he had obtained would have been to obtain recertifications or subsequent opinions from additional medical experts.
The Ninth Circuit held that an employer may present contrary medical evidence to defeat a doctor's certification in an FMLA certification case, but the statute does not require seeking a second or third opinion or recertifications. Thus, the jury was permitted to consider the non-medical evidence that Barrick had offered at trial in support of its position that Perez did not have a serious health condition within the meaning of the FMLA.
Hardell v. Vanzyl, 102 Cal. App. 5th. 960 (2024)
Cailin Hardell sued Adrian Vanzyl among others for sexual assault and battery, sexual harassment, and retaliation arising from an incident that occurred in Miami, Florida in March 2022. Vanzyl moved to quash service of the summons of the complaint on the ground that he was a non-resident of California and that he had insufficient contacts with California at the time of the incident for the trial court to exercise jurisdiction over him.
The trial court agreed with Vanzyl and quashed service and denied Hardell's request to conduct jurisdictional discovery.
The court of appeal agreed that the connection between...
