Oakland Personal Injury Attorney Blog

California Deputy Wins Appeal Because Disability Discrimination Cases Don’t Require Proof of an Employer’s Ill Will

May 31, 2016 | by Stephen M. Fuerch

A recent California Court of Appeal case from Northern California reaffirms the difference between disability discrimination cases and other types of disability matters. In this 2016 decision, the court re-affirmed that, if an employee is alleging that his employer discriminated based upon his disability or perceived disability, he is not required to prove that the employer’s adverse actions were the result of an intent to discriminate.

The employee in the case, Dennis Wallace, was a sheriff’s deputy in Stanislaus County. Wallace, who had previously injured his left knee at work, received a 12-month assignment as a court bailiff in 2010. Six months into the assignment, in October 2010, a medical exam revealed that the deputy’s knee was seriously damaged, and the doctor placed Wallace on further restrictions. Despite Wallace’s claims that he could perform the duties of his job, the employer decided to place him on leave. The employer made its decision based upon the mistaken belief that the October 2010 medical report left it no choice but to place the deputy on leave. Wallace remained on unpaid leave for more than a year, when he passed a fitness-for-duty exam.

Failure to Word Statutory Settlement Offer Properly Costs Defendants in California Motorcycle Accident Case

May 16, 2016 | by Stephen M. Fuerch

Settlement offers are part of many personal injury cases. Weighing whether to accept or reject an offer can be complicated, especially when you receive a statutory settlement offer in your California injury lawsuit. Rejecting such an offer and then obtaining a judgment that is less than the offered settlement amount could mean that you’re on the hook for paying some of the other side’s court costs. One injured Northern California motorcyclist escaped such a fate, even though the judgment he received was less than the amount offered, since the California Court of Appeal decided that the terms of the other side’s offer did not comply with the law’s requirements.

This case began with an auto accident in Alameda County. Seventeen-year-old Jacy Rasnick was driving her father’s car when she ran a stop sign and struck a motorcycle driven by Charles Sanford. Sanford sued the driver and her father for his injuries. The Rasnicks, through their lawyer, extended a statutory “998 offer” in the amount of $130,000. The Rasnicks conditioned this offer on Sanford’s entering into a settlement agreement and general release with them.

California Appeals Court Rules that FEHA Protections Cover Employees who Have Family Members With Disabilities

April 29, 2016 | by Stephen M. Fuerch

A groundbreaking new California Court of Appeal ruling has expanded the rights of workers under the Fair Employment and Housing Act, establishing that not only does that law protect employees with disabilities, but also it protects employees with family members who have disabilities. In the recent case, the court announced, for the first time, that employers have a legal responsibility to reasonably accommodate employees who have family members with disabilities and who depend on the employee for assistance.

Luis Castro-Ramirez, the employee in the case, had a son who required daily dialysis. When the man sought employment as a truck driver with Dependable Highway Express, Inc. in 2009, he told his prospective employer about the child’s needs. Specifically, he notified the employer that the child needed dialysis every day and that Castro-Ramirez was responsible for administering that daily dialysis. Only people who have completed classes in administering dialysis can perform the task, and Castro-Ramirez was the only person in his household who qualified.

Appeals Court Upholds Verdict Declaring Truck Driver Not Liable for Man’s Death Despite Marijuana Use

April 15, 2016 | by Stephen M. Fuerch

A recent decision by the California Court of Appeal upheld a jury verdict in favor of a truck driver in a fatal accident. Even though the truck driver backed over a contractor, causing the contractor’s death, and the truck driver had smoked marijuana two days earlier, the contractor’s family’s wrongful death case failed anyway. In any negligence case, the plaintiff must prove causation, and, in this case, the dead man’s family was unable to persuade the jury that the truck driver’s marijuana use, not the contractor’s inattentiveness, caused the contractor’s death.

The lawsuit arose after the tragic death of Dan Toste. Toste, a general contractor on an asphalt project on State Route 135, was working when a construction truck driven by Paul Michaelson backed over him. After the accident, Michaelson voluntarily took a drug test, which revealed quantities of marijuana in his system. The truck driver admitted he had smoked two days before the incident in order to treat a headache. Toste’s son sued Michaelson, his employer, and the asphalt supplier on the project, asserting claims of negligence and wrongful death.

How a Waiver Agreement Can Cost You in Your California Auto Accident Injury Suit

March 31, 2016 | by Stephen M. Fuerch

Before you sign a waiver agreement, it is important to understand just how broad that agreement’s coverage is. In a recent case before the California Court of Appeal, a man injured in an auto accident was not allowed to sue the driver at fault for the accident, nor the owner of the vehicle, because the accident was a “related activity” that was covered by a waiver the man signed with a religious-based substance abuse recovery home where he was residing at the time.

The accident occurred when David Richardson, an employee of In His Steps Christian Recovery Home, Inc., drove one of the home’s participants, Robert Murphy, to the DMV to get a state ID card, which Murphy needed in order to apply for public assistance. On their way to the DMV branch, Richardson ran a red light and crashed into another vehicle. Murphy was injured in the accident. Murphy sued Richardson, the home, and one of the home’s board members (who owned the van in which Murphy and Richardson were riding when the accident occurred) for negligence. The home, the employee, and the board member asked the trial court to issue a summary judgment in their favor. Murphy could not win his case, they asserted, because he had signed a waiver when he first entered the home’s program, and that waiver provision prohibited him from launching any lawsuits, such as this one, related to the home’s “help and assistance given … or related activities.”

Immunity Statute Blocks Southern California Man’s Lawsuit Against County Over Dangerous Intersection

March 15, 2016 | by Stephen M. Fuerch

An important new California Supreme Court ruling highlights exactly how broad the application of the state’s governmental design immunity statute is. The high court ruled against a man injured in an auto accident at an intersection that he alleged was dangerous, since the court concluded that the man’s case against San Diego County was barred by the statute. Even if the engineer who approved the design had no knowledge of the allegedly dangerous condition on the road, that lack of knowledge still did not prevent the county from asserting the immunity law.

The accident leading to the lawsuit occurred at the intersection of two rural roads in San Diego County. Randall Hampton was attempting to turn left from a side road onto a two-lane roadway. He executed the turn and was struck by Robert Cullen. The California Highway Patrol accident report stated that Hampton improperly pulled out in front of Cullen.

Arbitration Clauses in Employment Contracts and Your California FEHA Violation Claim

February 29, 2016 | by Stephen M. Fuerch

Two actors who accused their employer of maintaining a hostile work environment in violation of the Fair Employment and Housing Act successfully persuaded the California courts not to enforce the arbitration clauses in their employment contracts. While employers can demand arbitration of FEHA claims in some situations, the California Court of Appeal has twice ruled that this employer could not enforce its arbitration clause because it would have forced the employees to pay arbitration fees that they lacked the financial means to afford, which would have closed off all avenues for pursuing their hostile work environment claims.

Both cases involved actors who signed on to a musical theater production, “Beautiful,” performed in the Saban Theatre in Beverly Hills. One action was launched by an actress in the production, Jessica Prince. Another was initiated by Keith Somers, an actor in “Beautiful.” In Prince’s case, she alleged that the owner of the production company and producer of the musical, Mitchell Pletcher, sexually harassed her. She also stated that her employer altered her schedule and reduced her compensation, ultimately replacing her with an understudy.

Appeals Court Revives Wrongful Termination Case Brought by California Worker Fired After Suffering Workplace Injury

February 15, 2016 | by Stephen M. Fuerch

A worker who was fired shortly after he was injured on the job and filed for workers’ compensation won a victory recently when the California Court of Appeal reversed a trial court’s decision to award summary judgment to his employer. The court decided that, based upon the type of claim the employee made, the trial court should have analyzed the timeliness of his lawsuit using a two-year time period, not a one-year period.

The origin of the dispute between Adam Prue and his employer, Brady Company/San Diego, Inc., started with a workplace injury Prue suffered in June 2011. Based upon this injury, Prue made it known that he intended to file a workers’ compensation claim. Brady terminated Prue the next month. Prue sued his employer, alleging wrongful termination. The employee claimed that his employer terminated him because he suffered a disabling injury at work. Terminating him as Brady did violated the state’s public policy against discriminating against workers with disabilities, as demonstrated by the Fair Employment and Housing Act, Prue argued in his lawsuit.

California Lender Employee Fired for Stealing, Not Domestic Violence Absences from Work

January 29, 2016 | by Stephen M. Fuerch

An employee fired after taking several absences resulting from domestic violence was unable to maintain her discrimination lawsuit against her former employer. The California Court of Appeal upheld a judgment for the employer, concluding that the employee lacked necessary evidence to establish that the employer’s true reason for terminating her was her absences caused by her abusive boyfriend, as opposed to its stated reasons of theft of employer property.

The employee, Sara Rosales, worked at the Riverside location of Moneytree, Inc., a short-term lender, starting in 2008. A year later, Rosales began having problems because her dating relationship had turned violent. By the spring of 2010, the employee began missing work due to the facial injuries inflicted on her by her abusive boyfriend. Rosales incurred more absences as a result of court attendance regarding the domestic violence and also due to additional incidents of violence that left her face injured. Each time, though, the employer recorded Rosales as absent due to domestic violence, and she suffered no negative impact professionally.

Man Assumed Risk of Minor Injury when He Visited Southern California ‘Haunted Hotel’

January 15, 2016 | by Stephen M. Fuerch

The legal rule known as “assumption of the risk” has long applied to participants in sports. In 2012, the California Supreme Court extended it to apply to guests at an amusement park’s bumper-car attraction. Recently, the California Court of Appeal concluded that this legal defense against an injured guest’s negligence claim also applied when it comes to haunted house attractions. The legal rules requiring a business to keep its premises free of risks of injury did not extend to guests injured while running because they were frightened by a component of the attraction.

Many people have visited Halloween-themed attractions like downtown San Diego’s “Haunted Hotel.” Like most haunted house attractions, this one involves actors who “jump out of dark spaces often inches away from patrons, holding prop knives, axes, chainsaws, or severed body parts.” In the fall of 2011, Scott Griffin visited the Haunted Hotel. After many frights and scares, Griffin stepped through a gap in a chain-link fence, believing he had exited the attraction. In reality, the fence was a false exit, and Griffin was still inside the attraction. A chainsaw-wielding actor approached and then chased the man. Griffin ran away from the actor, tripped, fell, and injured his wrist.