Written by: Crystal M. O'Brien, Esq.

California Workplace Law Update:

Good News: Employer’s Restraining Order Can Be Based On Heresay Evidence

Generally, courts rely on best evidence to support rulings, especially those that have the effect of limiting someone’s right to freely move about the state.  However, in the case of employers seeking restraining orders that protect the safety of the workplace, one California Court of Appeal recently ruled that heresay evidence, alone, can support a permanent injunction preventing a former employee and/or their affiliates from getting anywhere near a workplace.

In Kaiser Foundation Hospitals v. Wilson (12/5/2011), Division One of the Fourth Apellate California Court of Appeal reviewed whether heresay evidence was sufficient to support a trial judge’s permanent injunction preventing a former employee’s husband from being within 200 feet of Kaiser facilities, including no telephone calling of individual employees, and for some three (3) years.  The Court of Appeal concluded that no law supported the denial of heresay evidence and interpreted the intent of the Legislature was to permit employers through Code of Civil Procedure section 527.8 to afford restraining orders when the threat of violence seems imminent and likely--- even if evidence offered is only through personal accounts of what individuals understand occurred, and not through personal observation or personal experiences.  In other words, he-said/she-said can be sufficient for supporting a restraining order.

This decision is most interesting during times when workplace safety remains an increasing concern.  In the midst of economic strain, minimal resources, and bare bones staffing, allowing employers the ability to take necessary steps to secure the workplace from those who threaten to “put [employees] . . . down,” who promise they are going to “flip [their] lid,” and who caution others that they may “do something [they] regret,” is simply prudent.  

Read the full decision.

Federal Law Update:

Oracle Decided: California-Based Employers Must Apply State Law to State Work

After much back and forth, the 9^th Circuit has finally reconsidered its 2008 Sullivan v. Oracle Corporation decision.  Many may recall that this decision required the California Supreme Court to determine whether California wage and hour law applied to labor claims of out-of-state residents for unpaid overtime while working in California for work generally classified as “exempt” by state standards.   We summarize this case below. Lay people, brace yourself for a nutshell version of unusually complicated judicial procedure.

So in Oracle, class representative IT instructors from Colorado and Arizona who were required to travel to California from time to time for training, worked long hours which often exceeded eight (8) hours.  However, these employees were not paid overtime, because in California, teachers are considered “exempt” and as such, Oracle had a practice of only paying traveling instructors a salary.  When these and similarly situated employees joined together to bring a class action, Oracle brought a motion for summary judgment, ultimately, which successfully dismissed a number of plaintiffs’ overtime claims.  Essentially, the employer argued that the employees were not able to benefit from California overtime laws when they were not residents of the state passing laws for its own resident workers.  The trial court’s decision was challenged by the employees in the Ninth Circuit. 

On appeal, the Ninth Circuit held that procedurally, the class had standing to bring claims citing to California law and representatives of the class were not required to apply laws from their individual resident states.  Law applicable to the common claims should be guided by California’s labor laws and deference was given to how the California State Supreme Court might decide whether it was in the state’s best interest to uphold the claims of any workers who benefitted employers based in California – especially when those workers are working in the State of California, even if only temporarily.  Well, the  California Supreme Court heard the matter and conclusively decided: California law applies to the Oracle employees’ claims.

Thus some two years later, the Ninth Circuit has now determined that Oracle’s summary judgment motion should be reversed.  In brief, the Court concluded, Oracle must proceed to trial and prove that the work performed by workers, while in California was “exempt” and cannot rely on California Wage Orders to establish they are “exempt.”  If Oracle’s case in favor of its classification (or misclassification) of worker status fails, the employer will be required to pay damages for violations of California overtime laws when it can be established workers performed duties in excess of eight (8) hours.

What is the lesson gleaned from this matter?  California-based employers with out-of-state workers, who perform work in California, must assure worker-classifications are correct and, at the least, ensure against 8-hour workdays if no overtime is going to be aid.

Read the decision in full.

As always, we at MMC understand that compliance with the forever dynamic body of federal and state laws may not always be easy.  Therefore, we encourage all to schedule your one-on-one counseling sessions and audits with our Labor & Employment Law Department at (800) 899-MMCI (6624) today. 

MMC HR E-Newsletter Archive