California Courts of Appeal
This case addressed multiple issues: (a) Companies will be found to be a single employer, and therefore jointly liable, when they meet the “single employer” test. (b) Religious entities are not subject to FEHA, even with respect to retaliation claims. (c) Punitive damages are available under the Labor Code’s whistleblower statuteMATHEWS v. HAPPY VALLEY CONFERENCE CENTER, INC.
PLAINTIFF REPORTED THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR’S SEXUAL HARASSMENT OF HIS CO-WORKERS
Plaintiff Mathews was a cook and maintenance supervisor with Defendant Happy Valley Conference Center. Happy Valley rented its space out and provided services for seminars, retreats and camps. Happy Valley is a subsidiary of Defendant Church of Christ.
A co-worker confided in Plaintiff that Happy Valley’s Executive Director, Melinda Gunnerud, had sent him sexually suggestive text messages and acted sexually inappropriately in other ways as well. Plaintiff reported the matter to the Church’s general counsel.
DEFENDANTS FIRED PLAINTIFF MATHEWS WITHIN A MONTH
Defendants conducted an investigation, which uncovered another employee who had received sexually harassing text messages from Gunnerud. The investigators were nonetheless dismissive, characterizing the messages as merely inappropriate jokes, and instead questioning Plaintiff’s motivations in bringing the matter to their attention.
Gunnerud received a reprimand, but continued in her position and continued to supervise Plaintiff and the other employees. When Plaintiff complained about this, he was given a new supervisor. That supervisor, who had been made aware of Plaintiff’s complaints, fired Plaintiff within a month.
THERE WAS SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO FIND THAT DEFENDANTS CONSTITUTED A SINGLE EMPLOYER
The court determined that there was ample evidence to find the defendants to have been a single employer for liability purposes. It used the four part test found in Laird v. Capital Cities/ABC Inc., 68 Cal.App.4th 727 (1998): (a) interrelation of operations, (b) common management, (c) common control of labor relationships, and (d) common ownership or financial control.
Using the “substantial evidence” standard, the court found that there was more than enough to hold both entities liable as a
single employer. Testimony adduced at trial showed that Happy Valley managers reported to the Church hierarchy. The Church audited Happy Valley’s books. Most importantly, the Church was involved extensively in Happy Valley’s labor issues, including Plaintiff’s termination.
The trial court erred by failing to highlight “common control of labor relationships” as the most important factor, but the error was harmless, given the amount of evidence presented at trial.
RELIGIOUS ENTITIES ARE NOT LIABLE UNDER FEHA, EVEN FOR RETALIATION
The appellate court did find that the trial court erred in ruling that Defendants could be liable under FEHA, or that they had waived or were estopped from asserting otherwise. Even though the FEHA retaliation section holds liable any “person,” the court relied on the reasoning in Jones v. Lodge at Torrey Pines Partnership, 42 Cal.4th 1158 (2008) to find that the term did not intend to include religious entities. Nonetheless, Plaintiff maintained his entitlement to attorney’s fees because he had also sued under Title VII.
THE WHISTLEBLOWER STATUTE ALLOWS FOR PUNITIVE DAMAGES
Finding it to be a matter of first impression, the court also affirmed the punitive damages award under Ca. Lab. Code §1102.5. Although the statute provides for a penalty, it states that that penalty is available in addition to other remedies. Moreover, §1102.5 does not have “a complex and detailed remedial scheme” such that its remedies should be deemed exclusive.
CONCLUSION
This case has a number of conclusions and language favorable to plaintiffs. Importantly, although tacitly assumed before, it may be the first case to find explicitly that punitive damages are available under the Labor Code’s whistleblower statute.
CELA INVOLVEMENT
Congratulations to CELA members Lisa Peck and Devin Coyle for this excellent result.
Sixth Dist., Filed 12/16/19. Opinion by Justice Grover.
Read More