Recent Developments from Around the States

Ronald McDaneld submitted a request for leave in January 1998, claiming that the leave was required to aid his father in recovering from ankle surgery. Although some evidence showed that McDaneld did look after his father, he also played golf, installed a sprinkler system and, on the final day of his leave, did not care for his father at all. (McDaneld later claimed that he used the final day of leave to care for his wife, who had injured her back.) McDaneld's employer, the Eastern Municipal Water District, interviewed McDaneld upon his return from leave, and issued a notice of proposed discharge. Although a disciplinary review committee recommended that McDaneld be reprimanded, the Water District fired him. McDaneld sued, claiming that he suffered retaliation for making use of his rights under California law and the Family and Medical Leave Act. After two hearings, the trial court upheld McDaneld's discharge.

On appeal, the California Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court, holding that the evidence proffered in the trial court provided sufficient basis for McDaneld's discharge. In addition, the court noted, the evidence indicated that McDaneld had lied to the Water District when he was questioned about the manner in which he had used his leave. The court observed that, in some instances, an employer's failure to provide notice to an employee about limitations on the use of family leave will prevent that employer from firing an employee when it appeared that leave had been used incorrectly. McDaneld's situation was different, however. 'An honest mistake may excuse a trivial misuse of family leave,' the Court wrote. Here, however, 'the water district's justifiable conclusion that [McDaneld] had misused leave ' and was untruthful allowed the district to terminate him anyway.'

Employee Who Engaged in Self-Defense Cannot Claim Wrongful Termination

The California Court of Appeal has held that a company did not wrongfully terminate an employee when it fired him for defending himself against a co-worker's physical attack instead of retreating. Escalante v. Wilson's Art Studio Inc., 135 Cal.Rptr.2d 187 (June 9).

Hector Escalante, a printer at an art studio, was attacked in February 1999 by a co-worker who had a history of violence. Escalante never hit the co-worker, but grabbed him in a bear hug rather than retreat. Escalante's employer subsequently terminated him because he chose to fight back. He responded by suing the company, claiming that he had been wrongfully terminated for engaging in his Constitutional right to self-defense. A jury found in Escalante's favor, and awarded him $367,000 in damages.

On appeal, the court held that the employer did not violate public policy by terminating Escalante, because he could have run for safety. The court noted that Escalante was 30 to 40 feet away from the co-worker when he decided to return and fight back. The court observed that employers are obligated to maintain safe workplaces under federal and state law, and that while self-defense is guaranteed under the federal Constitution, the public interest is not harmed by requiring employees to avoid physical conflict in the workplace where retreat was possible.

OHIO

Employment-Related Claims Must Be Arbitrated

The Ohio Court of Appeals has ruled that a stockbroker was required to arbitrate her employment-related claims against Salomon Smith Barney (Salomon). Cunningham-Malhoit v. Salomon Smith Barney Inc., 2003 WL 21255947 (May 30).

Monica Cunningham-Malhoit signed a form acknowledging her receipt in October 1997 of Salomon's employee handbook, which contained an arbitration provision. In December 1998, she executed another form acknowledging her receipt of an interim employee handbook. The second form indicated that she would be 'bound by the Travelers/Salomon Smith Barney Principles of Employment, which includes a predispute, employment arbitration provision.' In October 2001, Cunningham-Malhoit sued Salomon and a supervisor for, inter alia, breach of contract, fraud, sex and disability discrimination, and retaliation. Salomon moved to compel arbitration, which the trial court granted, ruling that the handbooks and the forms acknowledging receipt mandated arbitration of the claims against Salomon.

On appeal, the court held that the handbooks did not mandate arbitration, because they contained disclaimers stating explicitly that the handbooks did not constitute written contracts. In contrast, the court held that the acknowledgements signed by Cunningham-Malhoit obligated her to comply with the handbook policies, including the arbitration provisions contained therein, and that the language of the arbitration policy extended to her employment-related claims.

TEXAS

No Common-Law Duty of Reasonable Care, Says Court

The Texas Supreme Court has held that employers do not owe a common-law duty of reasonable care to employees when conducting drug tests, because federal Department of Transportation (DOT) rules provide sufficient protection. Mission Petroleum Carriers Inc. v. Solomon, 2002 WL 32094508 (May 15).

Raymond Solomon, an at-will employee, failed a drug text in April 1997. He provided a urine sample in an exposed and unsealed beaker that had been sitting on a manager's desk, which tested positive for marijuana use. Solomon requested a retest of his urine sample (which had been divided in half at the outset), which again tested positive. However, Solomon also offered a hair analysis that refuted the alleged marijuana use. Salomon was fired, and his name was registered in an industry-wide computer network, as required by the DOT. He was unable to find work as a truck driver thereafter. Solomon brought a negligence claim against his employer, asserting that it did not follow DOT testing protocol. A jury awarded Solomon over $902,000.

The Texas Supreme Court struck the verdict down. It noted that Solomon had signed a specimen chain-of-custody form confirming the identity and integrity of the testing sample, and that he did not request an independent medical review officer's assessment of the collection procedures, as was his right under the DOT rules. The court held that the DOT rules were a sufficient level of protection to invalidate false-positive test results, and that no additional protection was needed under state law.

Employment-Related Claims Must Be Arbitrated

The Ohio Court of Appeals has ruled that a stockbroker was required to arbitrate her employment-related claims against Salomon Smith Barney (Salomon). Cunningham-Malhoit v. Salomon Smith Barney Inc., 2003 WL 21255947 (May 30).

Monica Cunningham-Malhoit signed a form acknowledging her receipt in October 1997 of Salomon's employee handbook, which contained an arbitration provision. In December 1998, she executed another form acknowledging her receipt of an interim employee handbook. The second form indicated that she would be 'bound by the Travelers/Salomon Smith Barney Principles of Employment, which includes a predispute, employment arbitration provision.' In October 2001, Cunningham-Malhoit sued Salomon and a supervisor for, inter alia, breach of contract, fraud, sex and disability discrimination, and retaliation. Salomon moved to compel arbitration, which the trial court granted, ruling that the handbooks and the forms acknowledging receipt mandated arbitration of the claims against Salomon.

On appeal, the court held that the handbooks did not mandate arbitration, because they contained disclaimers stating explicitly that the handbooks did not constitute written contracts. In contrast, the court held that the acknowledgements signed by Cunningham-Malhoit obligated her to comply with the handbook policies, including the arbitration provisions contained therein, and that the language of the arbitration policy extended to her employment-related claims.

No Common-Law Duty of Reasonable Care, Says Court

The Texas Supreme Court has held that employers do not owe a common-law duty of reasonable care to employees when conducting drug tests, because federal Department of Transportation (DOT) rules provide sufficient protection. Mission Petroleum Carriers Inc. v. Solomon, 2002 WL 32094508 (May 15).

Raymond Solomon, an at-will employee, failed a drug text in April 1997. He provided a urine sample in an exposed and unsealed beaker that had been sitting on a manager's desk, which tested positive for marijuana use. Solomon requested a retest of his urine sample (which had been divided in half at the outset), which again tested positive. However, Solomon also offered a hair analysis that refuted the alleged marijuana use. Salomon was fired, and his name was registered in an industry-wide computer network, as required by the DOT. He was unable to find work as a truck driver thereafter. Solomon brought a negligence claim against his employer, asserting that it did not follow DOT testing protocol. A jury awarded Solomon over $902,000.

The Texas Supreme Court struck the verdict down. It noted that Solomon had signed a specimen chain-of-custody form confirming the identity and integrity of the testing sample, and that he did not request an independent medical review officer's assessment of the collection procedures, as was his right under the DOT rules. The court held that the DOT rules were a sufficient level of protection to invalidate false-positive test results, and that no additional protection was needed under state law.

CALIFORNIA

Discharge of Worker Who Lied about Family Leave Upheld

A mechanic who took family leave, ostensibly to aid his recovering father, but played golf and installed sprinklers instead, suffered no violation of state and federal family leave law when his employment was terminated, the California Court of Appeals has held. McDaneld v. Eastern Municipal Water Dist. Bd., 2003 Cal. App. LEXIS 844 (June 10).

Ronald McDaneld submitted a request for leave in January 1998, claiming that the leave was required to aid his father in recovering from ankle surgery. Although some evidence showed that McDaneld did look after his father, he also played golf, installed a sprinkler system and, on the final day of his leave, did not care for his father at all. (McDaneld later claimed that he used the final day of leave to care for his wife, who had injured her back.) McDaneld's employer, the Eastern Municipal Water District, interviewed McDaneld upon his return from leave, and issued a notice of proposed discharge. Although a disciplinary review committee recommended that McDaneld be reprimanded, the Water District fired him. McDaneld sued, claiming that he suffered retaliation for making use of his rights under California law and the Family and Medical Leave Act. After two hearings, the trial court upheld McDaneld's discharge.

On appeal, the California Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court, holding that the evidence proffered in the trial court provided sufficient basis for McDaneld's discharge. In addition, the court noted, the evidence indicated that McDaneld had lied to the Water District when he was questioned about the manner in which he had used his leave. The court observed that, in some instances, an employer's failure to provide notice to an employee about limitations on the use of family leave will prevent that employer from firing an employee when it appeared that leave had been used incorrectly. McDaneld's situation was different, however. 'An honest mistake may excuse a trivial misuse of family leave,' the Court wrote. Here, however, 'the water district's justifiable conclusion that [McDaneld] had misused leave ' and was untruthful allowed the district to terminate him anyway.'

Employee Who Engaged in Self-Defense Cannot Claim Wrongful Termination

The California Court of Appeal has held that a company did not wrongfully terminate an employee when it fired him for defending himself against a co-worker's physical attack instead of retreating. Escalante v. Wilson's Art Studio Inc. , 135 Cal.Rptr.2d 187 (June 9).

Hector Escalante, a printer at an art studio, was attacked in February 1999 by a co-worker who had a history of violence. Escalante never hit the co-worker, but grabbed him in a bear hug rather than retreat. Escalante's employer subsequently terminated him because he chose to fight back. He responded by suing the company, claiming that he had been wrongfully terminated for engaging in his Constitutional right to self-defense. A jury found in Escalante's favor, and awarded him $367,000 in damages.

On appeal, the court held that the employer did not violate public policy by terminating Escalante, because he could have run for safety. The court noted that Escalante was 30 to 40 feet away from the co-worker when he decided to return and fight back. The court observed that employers are obligated to maintain safe workplaces under federal and state law, and that while self-defense is guaranteed under the federal Constitution, the public interest is not harmed by requiring employees to avoid physical conflict in the workplace where retreat was possible.

OHIO

Employment-Related Claims Must Be Arbitrated

The Ohio Court of Appeals has ruled that a stockbroker was required to arbitrate her employment-related claims against Salomon Smith Barney (Salomon). Cunningham-Malhoit v. Salomon Smith Barney Inc., 2003 WL 21255947 (May 30).

Monica Cunningham-Malhoit signed a form acknowledging her receipt in October 1997 of Salomon's employee handbook, which contained an arbitration provision. In December 1998, she executed another form acknowledging her receipt of an interim employee handbook. The second form indicated that she would be 'bound by the Travelers/Salomon Smith Barney Principles of Employment, which includes a predispute, employment arbitration provision.' In October 2001, Cunningham-Malhoit sued Salomon and a supervisor for, inter alia, breach of contract, fraud, sex and disability discrimination, and retaliation. Salomon moved to compel arbitration, which the trial court granted, ruling that the handbooks and the forms acknowledging receipt mandated arbitration of the claims against Salomon.

On appeal, the court held that the handbooks did not mandate arbitration, because they contained disclaimers stating explicitly that the handbooks did not constitute written contracts. In contrast, the court held that the acknowledgements signed by Cunningham-Malhoit obligated her to comply with the handbook policies, including the arbitration provisions contained therein, and that the language of the arbitration policy extended to her employment-related claims.

TEXAS

No Common-Law Duty of Reasonable Care, Says Court

The Texas Supreme Court has held that employers do not owe a common-law duty of reasonable care to employees when conducting drug tests, because federal Department of Transportation (DOT) rules provide sufficient protection. Mission Petroleum Carriers Inc. v. Solomon, 2002 WL 32094508 (May 15).

Raymond Solomon, an at-will employee, failed a drug text in April 1997. He provided a urine sample in an exposed and unsealed beaker that had been sitting on a manager's desk, which tested positive for marijuana use. Solomon requested a retest of his urine sample (which had been divided in half at the outset), which again tested positive. However, Solomon also offered a hair analysis that refuted the alleged marijuana use. Salomon was fired, and his name was registered in an industry-wide computer network, as required by the DOT. He was unable to find work as a truck driver thereafter. Solomon brought a negligence claim against his employer, asserting that it did not follow DOT testing protocol. A jury awarded Solomon over $902,000.

The Texas Supreme Court struck the verdict down. It noted that Solomon had signed a specimen chain-of-custody form confirming the identity and integrity of the testing sample, and that he did not request an independent medical review officer's assessment of the collection procedures, as was his right under the DOT rules. The court held that the DOT rules were a sufficient level of protection to invalidate false-positive test results, and that no additional protection was needed under state law.

Employment-Related Claims Must Be Arbitrated

The Ohio Court of Appeals has ruled that a stockbroker was required to arbitrate her employment-related claims against Salomon Smith Barney (Salomon). Cunningham-Malhoit v. Salomon Smith Barney Inc., 2003 WL 21255947 (May 30).

Monica Cunningham-Malhoit signed a form acknowledging her receipt in October 1997 of Salomon's employee handbook, which contained an arbitration provision. In December 1998, she executed another form acknowledging her receipt of an interim employee handbook. The second form indicated that she would be 'bound by the Travelers/Salomon Smith Barney Principles of Employment, which includes a predispute, employment arbitration provision.' In October 2001, Cunningham-Malhoit sued Salomon and a supervisor for, inter alia, breach of contract, fraud, sex and disability discrimination, and retaliation. Salomon moved to compel arbitration, which the trial court granted, ruling that the handbooks and the forms acknowledging receipt mandated arbitration of the claims against Salomon.

On appeal, the court held that the handbooks did not mandate arbitration, because they contained disclaimers stating explicitly that the handbooks did not constitute written contracts. In contrast, the court held that the acknowledgements signed by Cunningham-Malhoit obligated her to comply with the handbook policies, including the arbitration provisions contained therein, and that the language of the arbitration policy extended to her employment-related claims.

No Common-Law Duty of Reasonable Care, Says Court

The Texas Supreme Court has held that employers do not owe a common-law duty of reasonable care to employees when conducting drug tests, because federal Department of Transportation (DOT) rules provide sufficient protection. Mission Petroleum Carriers Inc. v. Solomon, 2002 WL 32094508 (May 15).

Raymond Solomon, an at-will employee, failed a drug text in April 1997. He provided a urine sample in an exposed and unsealed beaker that had been sitting on a manager's desk, which tested positive for marijuana use. Solomon requested a retest of his urine sample (which had been divided in half at the outset), which again tested positive. However, Solomon also offered a hair analysis that refuted the alleged marijuana use. Salomon was fired, and his name was registered in an industry-wide computer network, as required by the DOT. He was unable to find work as a truck driver thereafter. Solomon brought a negligence claim against his employer, asserting that it did not follow DOT testing protocol. A jury awarded Solomon over $902,000.

The Texas Supreme Court struck the verdict down. It noted that Solomon had signed a specimen chain-of-custody form confirming the identity and integrity of the testing sample, and that he did not request an independent medical review officer's assessment of the collection procedures, as was his right under the DOT rules. The court held that the DOT rules were a sufficient level of protection to invalidate false-positive test results, and that no additional protection was needed under state law.