Biel v. St. James School, 2018 WL 6597221 (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 CityCity of San Diego v. Superior Court, 2018 WL 6629322 (Cal. Ct. App. 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 CCP § 998 CostsHuerta v. Kava Holdings, Inc., 29 Cal. App. 5th 74 (2018)
Felix Huerta sued Kava Holdings dba Hotel Bel-Air after the hotel terminated him and another restaurant server who was involved in an altercation during work. The trial court granted Kava’s motion for nonsuit as to Huerta’s claim for retaliation under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”), and the jury returned a verdict against Huerta on the remaining FEHA claims. The trial court subsequently denied Kava’s motion for attorney’s fees, expert fees and costs under Cal. Gov’t Code § 12965(b) on the ground that Huerta’s action was not frivolous, but granted Kava $50,000 in costs and expert witness fees under Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 998 based on Huerta’s rejection of Kava’s pretrial settlement offer. The Court of Appeal reversed, holding that Section 998 does not apply to non-frivolous FEHA actions. (The Court further noted that effective Jan. 1, 2019, Section 998 will have no application to costs and attorney and expert witness fees in a FEHA action unless the lawsuit is found to be frivolous.)
Employer May Be Liable For Accident Caused By On-Call EmployeeMoreno v. Visser Ranch, Inc., 2018 WL 6696021 (Cal. Ct. App. 2018)
Ray David Moreno, a passenger riding in a truck that his father (Ernesto Moreno) was driving, was injured when the truck left the roadway, hit an...
