California businesses that have 50 or more employees are already required to train supervisors on legally prohibited sexual harassment. Following California Governor Jerry Brown’s recent signing of A.B. 2053, that training must now also include education on preventing “abusive conduct” in the workplace, even if the conduct is not based on a protected characteristic nor constitutes legally prohibited discrimination or harassment.
As amended by…
Gregory v. Cott, 2014 WL 3805478 (Cal. S. Ct. 2014)
Carolyn Gregory was injured while providing in-home care for Lorraine Cott, an Alzheimer’s disease patient. Gregory received workers’ compensation benefits but sued the Cotts for negligence and premises liability and asserted a claim against Lorraine for battery. The trial court granted a defense motion for summary judgment based on the primary assumption of risk…
Ventura v. ABM Indus., Inc., 2012 WL 6636255 (Cal. Ct. App. 2012)
Sylvia Ventura worked as a janitor for ABM. Ventura alleged a history of harassment and an act of violence by her supervisor, Carlos Manzano, and ratification by ABM. The jury awarded Ventura $100,000 in compensatory damages for past mental suffering. The trial court entered judgment in Ventura’s favor in the amount of…
Touchstone Television Prods. v. Superior Court, 208 Cal. App. 4th 676 (2012)
Touchstone had an agreement with actress Nicollette Sheridan that gave it the exclusive option to renew Sheridan’s contract on an annual basis for an additional six seasons (after the first season) of the television show “Desperate Housewives.” Sheridan sued Touchstone for wrongful termination in violation of public policy, claiming she had been…
Kaiser Found. Hospitals v. Wilson, 201 Cal. App. 4th 550 (2011)
The trial court considered hearsay evidence in issuing injunctions under Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 527.8, prohibiting Jeff Wilson (the husband of a terminated Kaiser employee) from committing acts of violence or making threats of violence against two Kaiser employees. The trial court considered hearsay evidence that Wilson had threatened to “put [the…
Flores v. Autozone West, Inc., 161 Cal. App. 4th 373 (2008)
Juan Rodriguez Flores was injured by Erwin Gomez, an Autozone employee, when Gomez struck Flores on the head with a steel pipe. Flores sued Autozone for assault and battery based on a respondeat superior theory and for negligent hiring and related torts. The trial court granted Autozone’s motion for summary judgment, but the…
United States v. Sutcliffe, 505 F.3d 944 (9th Cir. 2007)
Sutcliffe, a computer technician, was convicted of three counts of making interstate threats (via the Internet) to injure another and five counts of transferring social security numbers with the intent to aid and abet unlawful activity. Global Crossing terminated Sutcliffe’s employment shortly after he was hired because he had failed to provide his social…
Plancarte v. Guardsmark, LLC, 118 Cal. App. 4th 640 (2004)
Eveilia Plancarte alleged that Toufik Kadah, a Guardsmark security guard, was responsible for assault, battery, false imprisonment and intentional infliction of emotional distress, all of which allegedly occurred while she was working as a janitor in a building in which Kadah was working as a guard. Plancarte also alleged “respondeat superior,” negligent hiring and…
Yamaguchi v. Harnsmut, 106 Cal. App. 4th 472 (2003)
San Francisco Police Officer Tadao Yamaguchi and his wife, Tracy, sued Chaiyut Harnsmut and his wife, among others, for injuries Yamaguchi sustained when one of Harnsmut’s employees (Wisan Vatanavkovarun) threw scalding hot oil on Yamaguchi in the midst of an altercation that Wisan was having with one of his co-employees at the restaurant. The Court…
USS-Posco Indus. v. Edwards, 111 Cal. App. 4th 436 (2003)
Ezell Edwards was terminated from his employment as a mill worker at USS-Posco Industries’ (UPI’s) tin mill after he made generalized threats of violence against UPI, including a statement that “they’re going to have to change the company’s name from USS-Posco to USSColumbine.” The trial court issued a three-year injunction in the name of…
Proskauer and our platform provider LexBlog each use cookies to personalize content and ads, to provide social media features and to analyze traffic. Each of us also share information about your use of our site with our social media, advertising and analytics partners. If you are happy for us to store these cookies on your device please click ‘Accept Cookies.' For more information, please see here and here.
