Procedural Posture
Plaintiff appealed from a summary judgment granted to defendant county, his former employer, in the Superior Court of Humboldt County, (California), which disposed of his action. Plaintiff contended that triable issues of fact existed as to his claims for discrimination in violation of the California Fair Employment and Housing Act, Cal. Gov’t. Code §12900 et seq., as well as assault and battery, and emotional distress.
California Business Lawyer & Corporate Lawyer, Inc. shares California Termination Checklist
Overview
Plaintiff had been terminated from employment defendant county because of medical problems with his back. Plaintiff filed suit in the trial court alleging unlawful discrimination in employment, constructive discharge, discrimination and harassment based on a physical handicap, breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, retaliation, conspiracy, assault and battery and negligent and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Defendant filed a motion to dismiss plaintiff’s claims which was granted as to discrimination, assault and battery and emotional distress. Plaintiff appealed contending triable issues of fact existed as to his claims for discrimination in violation of the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), Cal. Gov’t. Code §12900 et seq., assault and battery, and emotional distress. The court held that work-related injury discrimination was not a normal risk of the employment compensation bargain and that FEHA claims were not precluded given FEHA’s broad scope. Therefore, the trial court judgment was reversed as to claims for FEHA as well as intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress.
Outcome
The court affirmed the trial court’s grant of summary judgment to defendant county on the assault and battery claim, but reversed the trial court’s grant of summary judgment as to the California Fair Employment and Housing Act claim and causes of action for intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress. The court concluded that work-related injury discrimination was not a normal risk of the employment compensation bargain.
