February 2, 1998
Standard In Wrongful Termination Cases Is Whether Employer Conducted Reasonable Investigation
[Cotran v. Rollins Hudig Hall International, Inc.(98 Daily Journal D.A.R. 117)]In earlier decisions, the California Appellate Courts have differed as to whether an employer could be held liable for the termination of an employee who was later found by a judge or jury not to have committed the offense which lead to the termination. (See Legal Advisory 96-39) In this case, the California Supreme Court resolved those conflicts by establishing a standard of review.
In essence, the Court concluded that in a wrongful termination action, the employer need not prove that the conduct actually occurred. Rather, the employer must prove that it acted reasonably and in good faith. The California Supreme Court explained this standard as requiring "fair and honest reasons, regulated by good faith on the part of the employer, that are not trivial, arbitrary or capricious, unrelated to business needs or goals, or pretextual. A reasoned conclusion, in short, supported by substantial evidence gathered through an adequate investigation that includes notice of the claimed misconduct and a chance for the employee to respond" is what is required.
This decision affirms the better reasoned line of the Appellate Court decisions. It precludes arbitrary or capricious actions on the part of the employer, yet does not transform the personnel office into a court room.
As the information contained herein is necessarily general, its application to a particular set of facts and circumstances may vary. For this reason, this News Brief does not constitute legal advice. We recommend that you consult with your counsel prior to acting on the information contained herein.
Generously Provided by Schools Legal Counsel | Back to Legal Index | FCMAT On-line Resources |
February 2, 1998
Employee Must Inform Employer of Specific Mental Disability in Order to be Protected by the California Fair Employment and Housing Act
[Pensinger, Jr., v. Bowsmith, Inc. (98 Daily Journal D.A.R. 151)]This case involved the termination of a salesperson who had a specific learning disability which impacted his ability to read and write.
In the past, supervisors accommodated this condition by allowing the employee to submit oral reports concerning his sales contacts. However, the employer ultimately found this solution unsatisfactory. The employee was terminated and filed suit claiming that he was discriminated against under Government Code Section 12940, the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA).
In its analysis, the Court notes that with respect to mental disabilities, the FEHA does not require that the disability limit a major life activity as it does for physical disabilities. The Court, however, went on to explain that the Act requires that the employee show that the employer had specific knowledge of the mental disability. Following a detailed analysis of the facts, the Court concluded that it was not sufficient for the employee to have told the employer that he had difficulty with reading and writing. The employee had the burden of providing the employer with more specific knowledge concerning his disability.As the information contained herein is necessarily general, its application to a particular set of facts and circumstances may vary. For this reason, this News Brief does not constitute legal advice. We recommend that you consult with your counsel prior to acting on the information contained herein.
Generously Provided by Schools Legal Counsel | Back to Legal Index | FCMAT On-line Resources |
February 2, 1998
Public Employee may be Disciplined for Lying to Investigators
[LaChance v. Erickson (98 C.D.O.S. 508)]In this case various federal employees were charged with misconduct. At various times each of them made false statements to investigators with respect to the misconduct with which they were charged. These false statements were not under oath. In each case the employing agency added the making of a false statement as an additional ground for discipline.
The employees subsequently appealed contending that, in effect, they had a right to make false statements during the investigation. In reviewing the case, the United States Supreme Court rejected this contention. Citing from a previous decision, the Court explained:"Our legal system provides methods for challenging the Government's right to ask questions- lying is not one of them. A citizen may decline to answer the question, or answer it honestly, but he cannot with impunity knowingly and willfully answer with a falsehood."
In considering whether the employees could receive enhanced discipline as a result of their falsehoods, the Court concluded that additional punishment could be administered. In doing so, the argument that a negative inference could be drawn from an employee who refused to answer or took the Fifth Amendment was rejected.
This case will be of assistance to public employers at all levels of government in investigating misconduct by employees.As the information contained herein is necessarily general, its application to a particular set of facts and circumstances may vary. For this reason, this News Brief does not constitute legal advice. We recommend that you consult with your counsel prior to acting on the information contained herein.
Generously Provided by Schools Legal Counsel | Back to Legal Index | FCMAT On-line Resources |
February 4, 1998
Metal Detector Searches of Students Upheld
[People v. Latasha W. (98 Daily Journal D.A.R. 931)]A metal detector search of a high school student resulted in the discovery of a knife with a blade longer than 2.5 inches. The student was charged with a criminal offense. In the juvenile court proceedings the student sought to suppress the knife on the ground that the search was unlawful.
The Court upheld the search noting that the high school had a written policy providing for daily weapon searches, and that the searches were made at random with the individuals to be searched on the basis of neutral criteria. In addition parents and students were given notice of the District's policy concerning searches.
In upholding the search, the Court explained:
"The need of schools to keep weapons off campus is substantial. Guns and knives pose a threat of death or serious injury to students and staff. The California Constitution, article I, section 28, subdivision (c), provides that students and staff of public schools have 'the inalienable right to attend campuses which are safe, secure and peaceful.'
The searches in the present case were minimally intrusive. Only a random sample of students was tested. Students were not touched during the search, and were required to open pockets or jackets only if they triggered the metal detector.
Finally, no system of more suspicion- intense searches would be workable. Schools have no practical way to monitor students as they dress and prepare for school in the morning, and hence no feasible way to learn that individual students have concealed guns or knives on their persons, save for those students who brandish or display the weapons. And, by the time weapons are displayed, it may well be too late to prevent their use."This is the first California case to specifically uphold the use of metal detectors in the random search of students. However, the Attorney General has previously sanctioned such searches. (See Legal Advisory 92-37)
As the information contained herein is necessarily general, its application to a particular set of facts and circumstances may vary. For this reason, this News Brief does not constitute legal advice. We recommend that you consult with your counsel prior to acting on the information contained herein.
Generously Provided by Schools Legal Counsel | Back to Legal Index | FCMAT On-line Resources |