Alien Employee Who Was Induced To Come To The U.S. Was Properly Awarded Unpaid Wages

Posted on July 14, 2010 by Anthony Oncidi

Singh v. Southland Stone, U.S.A., Inc., 2010 WL 2613089 (Cal. Ct. App. 2010)

Gurpreet Singh moved from India to California to work as a general manager for Southland Stone. After Singh resigned and returned to India, he filed suit against Southland and its president (Ravinder S. Johar), alleging various contract and tort claims. The jury awarded Singh more than $980,000 for past and future noneconomic damages, economic damages, unpaid wages and punitive damages. The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment in part (as to the denial of the breach of contract claim and the award of $6,800 in wages whose payment defendants conditioned upon Singh’s signing a release), but otherwise reversed the judgment. The Court reversed the judgment on the claim for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing (because Singh was employed at will) and the claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress (because it was barred by the exclusive remedy of the Workers’ Compensation Act) and ordered the trial court to enter judgment for defendants on those claims.

The Court reversed the judgment and ordered a new trial on the claims for promissory estoppel, misrepresentation to induce relocation for employment, false promise, intentional misrepresentation and concealment because the special verdict findings were inconsistent. The Court also held the damages awarded appeared to be duplicative.
Tags: , , , , ,

Trustee Of Estate Did Not Sexually Harass Widow

Posted on July 1, 2009 by Tony Oncidi

Hughes v. Pair, 2009 WL 1886877 (Cal. S. Ct. 2009)

Suzan Hughes, the third wife of Herbalife founder Mark Hughes, sued Christopher Pair, one of the three trustees of Mark’s estate, for sexual harassment under Civil Code § 51.9 (which prohibits sexual harassment in certain business, service and professional relationships) and for intentional infliction of emotional distress. (Although this case does not involve an employment relationship, the California Supreme Court held that the Legislature intended Section 51.9 to be applied in a fashion consistent with the FEHA and Title VII.) The Court affirmed summary judgment in favor of Pair after concluding that Hughes had failed to establish either quid pro quo sexual harassment or conduct that was so severe or pervasive as to constitute sexual harassment. As for the latter form of harassment, the Court noted that Pair had not physically touched Hughes and that Pair’s “vulgar and highly offensive” comments to Hughes were ambiguous and part of an isolated incident. Similarly, the Court held that Pair’s actions were not sufficiently extreme or outrageous and Hughes’s alleged emotional injuries were not severe enough to result in liability for intentional infliction of emotional distress.

Tags: , , ,