Former American Express Employee Files Nationwide Discrimination Class Action

On August 23, 2022 former American Express employee, Brian Netzel, filed a nationwide class action against the financial services giant alleging that the company implemented racial quotas to manipulate its “diversity” numbers and gave executives financial bonuses for decreasing the percentage of white employees in their departments. The complaint, filed by The Pivtorak Law Firm in the Federal District Court for the District of Arizona, alleges that when the company’s “Board of Directors and its CEO, Stephen Squeri, decided that they wanted the percentage of black employees in the company to match that of the U.S. population, American Express implemented policies to achieve that numerical goal without any regard for employees in unfavored racial categories or existing civil rights laws.”

The suit further alleges that American Express aggressively implemented its racial engineering policies by rewarding executives who met quotas and punishing those who insisted on making employment decisions based on merit rather than race.

The complaint states,   

Like in any society whose authorities enforce rules differently based on identity categories, life at American Express became racially toxic and intimidating for white employees. The company’s policies incentivized coworkers and supervisors to use race as a cudgel through which personal grudges and ambitions could be executed. Upon information and belief, this resulted in hundreds of white employees being terminated or forced to leave the company because they could not tolerate the racially repressive environment.

This lawsuit is brought pursuant to federal civil rights laws, including Titles VII of the Civil Rights Act and 42 U.S.C. § 1981. Plaintiff is seeking monetary damages for lost wages and emotional distress, injunctive relief to stop the unlawful practices, and punitive damages on behalf of himself and all white employees who were affected by American Express’s racially discriminatory policies.

A copy of the complaint can be found HERE.

Prestigious Los Angeles School Sued for Anti-Semitic Discrimination and Racial Segregation

On June 8, 2022 The Pivtorak Law Firm filed a lawsuit on behalf of Jerome Eisenberg, a Los Angeles parent and his daughter alleging that the exclusive private school she attended instituted policies of racial discrimination and segregation in violation of state and federal civil rights laws. The complaint, filed in Los Angeles Superior Court, alleges that the Brentwood School and its head of school, Mike Riera, “pulled a bait-and-switch with the school’s curriculum and culture… [seeking] to transform the school under a racially divisive, anti-Semitic ideology that seeks to indoctrinate children to reject Western values.”

The complaint further alleges that,

[a]s a result of Defendants’ anti-Semitic animus Mr. Eisenberg and the other Jewish parents were prevented from participating in the school’s policy-making decisions…

Affinity groups at Brentwood were organizations made up of parents, students, and school community members that were formed around a shared culture, race, or other identity. These groups had considerable influence in policy-making at Brentwood.

Affinity groups representing almost every imaginable race and identity existed at Brentwood during this time, except for a Jewish affinity group.

Jewish parents had been planning to form an affinity group for some time and sought to work with defendants to create one so that they had equal representation and say about important matters at the school.

This became increasingly important to Mr. Eisenberg, and other Jewish parents, when Brentwood made it clear that its policies were going to be increasingly controlled by the Office of Equity and Inclusion and the DIE consultant defendants were in the process of selecting.

Plaintiff’s concern was especially warranted by the widely known fact that a large majority of “diversity officers” hold anti-Semitic and anti-Israel views.[1]

From the beginning, defendants intentionally stifled Brentwood’s Jewish community members from forming an affinity group.

[1] See Kredo, Adam: “Overwhelming Number of Diversity Officers at US Colleges Hold Anti-Israel Views, Study Says” Washington Free Beacon, December 10, 2021 available at https://freebeacon.com/campus/overwhelming-number-of-diversity-officers-at-us-colleges-hold-anti-israel-views-study-says/

Eventually Defendants instituted racially segregated meetings for parents, faculty, staff, and stakeholders in violation of both federal and state constitutional principles.   

When Mr. Eisenberg complained to the school and its leadership his daughter was threatened with expulsion and eventually prohibited from enrolling for the next school year.

This lawsuit is brought pursuant to federal and state civil rights laws, including the Unruh Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1981, and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

A copy of the complaint can be found HERE.

Parental Rights in California for Sex Education and Gender Ideology

Much confusion has been generated by California's complex network of laws relating to sex education, Gender Ideology, and the right of parents to guide the nurture and upbringing of their children. The good news is that, while there is much to be concerned about in the legislation, important protections of parental rights remain in both state and federal law. The following questions and answers, which are followed by detailed information taken directly from the statutes themselves, should clear up much of the confusion.


QUICK Q&A ON SEX ED LAWS

Q: Is sex education now mandated for kindergarten or elementary grades?

A: Absolutely not!

Q: Do parents in California still have the right to opt their children out of sex education?

A: Absolutely!

Q: Can my child be punished if I opt them out of sex ed?

A: No, that would be illegal.

Q: What notice is required to be given to parents about sex education?

A: The notice provisions are detailed and set forth below.

Q: Did the Legislature intend for teachers to replace parents in teaching kids about sex?

A: No.

Q: Can sex education still promote abstinence?

A: Yes. In fact, sex ed that does not highlight abstinence would be non-compliant.

Q: Can a school choose not to promote Planned Parenthood?

A: Yes.

Q: Can I opt my child out of LGBT discussions?

A: Yes, if it is presented as part of sex ed.

Q: Can a teacher ask my child sex-related questions without my knowledge or consent?

A: No.

Q: What is required to be included as part of comprehensive sex education?

A: The list is fairly long but is included below.

Q: How is it determined what is “age appropriate” instruction?

A: This phrase is defined by statute.


DETAILED ANSWERS ON SEX ED

Q: Is sex education now mandated for kindergarten or elementary grades?

A: Absolutely not! The Education Code, in Section 51934, provides:

(a) Each school district shall ensure that all pupils in grades 7 to 12, inclusive, receive comprehensive sexual health education and HIV prevention education from instructors trained in the appropriate courses. Each pupil shall receive this instruction at least once in junior high or middle school and at least once in high school.

The same statute then goes on in subsection (b) to allow school districts to begin sex ed sooner. Thus, it is crucial for parents to be engaged the with decision-making of their local school board and let their voices be heard.

(b) A school district may provide comprehensive sexual health education or HIV prevention education consisting of age-appropriate instruction earlier than grade 7 using instructors trained in the appropriate courses. A school district that elects to offer comprehensive sexual health education or HIV prevention education earlier than grade 7 may provide age appropriate and medically accurate information on any of the general topics contained in paragraphs (1) to (11), inclusive, of subdivision.

Q: Do parents in California still have the right to opt their children out of sex education?

A: Absolutely! According to the Ed Code, Section 51938 states:

(a) A parent or guardian of a pupil has the right to excuse their child from all or part of comprehensive sexual health education, HIV prevention education, and assessments related to that education through a passive consent (“opt-out”) process.

The Ed Code further provides, in Section 51939:

A pupil may not attend any class in comprehensive sexual health education or HIV prevention education, or participate in any anonymous, voluntary, and confidential test, questionnaire, or survey on pupil health behaviors and risks, if the school has received a written request from the pupil’s parent or guardian excusing the pupil from participation.

One of the things that changed with the enactment of the California Healthy Youth Act was that parents must now be more proactive to opt-out; school districts can no longer limit sex ed by requiring an opt-in process or skipping the subject entirely (as was permissible before the CHYA). Also noteworthy from Section 51938 is that parents may choose to opt their children out of “part” of sex ed. Some school districts have mistakenly told parents this is not possible, but state law says otherwise.

Q: Can my child be punished if I opt them out of sex ed?

A: No, that would be illegal. Section 51939(b) mandates:

A pupil may not be subject to disciplinary action, academic penalty, or other sanction if the pupil’s parent or guardian declines to permit the pupil to receive comprehensive sexual health education or HIV prevention education or to participate in anonymous, voluntary, and confidential tests, questionnaires, or surveys on pupil health behaviors and risks.

The same Section further states:

(c) While comprehensive sexual health education, HIV prevention education, or anonymous, voluntary, and confidential test, questionnaire, or survey on pupil health behaviors and risks is being administered, an alternative educational activity shall be made available to pupils whose parents or guardians have requested that they not receive the instruction or participate in the test, questionnaire, or survey.

Q: What notice is required to be given to parents about sex education?

A: Ed Code Section 51938 reads:

(b) At the beginning of each school year, or, for a pupil who enrolls in a school after the beginning of the school year, at the time of that pupil’s enrollment, each school district shall notify the parent or guardian of each pupil about instruction in comprehensive sexual health education and HIV prevention education and research on pupil health behaviors and risks planned for the coming year. The notice shall do all of the following:

(1) Advise the parent or guardian that written and audiovisual educational materials used in comprehensive sexual health education and HIV prevention education are available for inspection.

(2) Advise the parent or guardian whether the comprehensive sexual health education or HIV prevention education will be taught by school district personnel or by outside consultants. A school district may provide comprehensive sexual health education or HIV prevention education, to be taught by outside consultants, and may hold an assembly to deliver comprehensive sexual health education or HIV prevention education by guest speakers, but if it elects to provide comprehensive sexual health education or HIV prevention education in either of these manners, the notice shall include the date of the instruction, the name of the organization or affiliation of each guest speaker, and information stating the right of the parent or guardian to request a copy of this section, Section 51933, and Section 51934. If arrangements for this instruction are made after the beginning of the school year, notice shall be made by mail or another commonly used method of notification, no fewer than 14 days before the instruction is delivered.

(3) Include information explaining the parent’s or guardian’s right to request a copy of this chapter.

(4) Advise the parent or guardian that the parent or guardian has the right to excuse their child from comprehensive sexual health education and HIV prevention education and that in order to excuse their child they must state their request in writing to the school district.

Q: Did the Legislature intend for teachers to replace parents in teaching kids about sex?

A: No. Ed Code Section 51937 reads:

It is the intent of the Legislature to encourage pupils to communicate with their parents or guardians about human sexuality and HIV and to respect the rights of parents or guardians to supervise their children’s education on these subjects. The Legislature intends to create a streamlined process to make it easier for parents and guardians to review materials and evaluation tools related to comprehensive sexual health education and HIV prevention education, and, if they wish, to excuse their children from participation in all or part of that instruction or evaluation. The Legislature recognizes that while parents and guardians overwhelmingly support medically accurate, comprehensive sex education, parents and guardians have the ultimate responsibility for imparting values regarding human sexuality to their children.

Q: Can sex education still promote abstinence?

A: Yes. Even in California, where pro-life beliefs are under assault, Ed Code Section 51934 explains:

Information that abstinence from sexual activity and injection drug use is the only certain way to prevent HIV and other sexually transmitted infections and abstinence from sexual intercourse is the only certain way to prevent unintended pregnancy. This instruction shall provide information about the value of delaying sexual activity while also providing medically accurate information on other methods of preventing HIV and other sexually transmitted infections and pregnancy.

Q: Can a school choose not to promote Planned Parenthood?

A: Yes. Ed Code Section 51936 allows but does not require schools to contract with consultants or guest speakers for sex ed but mandates:

All outside consultants and guest speakers shall have expertise in comprehensive sexual health education and HIV prevention education and have knowledge of the most recent medically accurate research on the relevant topic or topics covered in their instruction.

Section 51938(d) further states:

(d) The use of outside consultants or guest speakers as described in paragraph (2) of subdivision (b) is within the discretion of the school district.

While sex ed now must include discussions about abortion, as well as other methods of contraception, don’t let any school official tell you that Planned Parenthood is the only qualified presenter or resource!


DETAILED ANSWERS ON LGBT INSTRUCTION

Q: Can I opt my child out of LGBT discussions?

A: Yes, if those discussions are included as part of sex ed, or involve questioning of your child about their beliefs. With the enactment of the CHYA, the Legislature created needless confusion about LGBT issues in sex education. On the one hand, it is now mandated that LGBT issues be covered in sex ed, and as explained above, parents may opt out of all or part of such instruction. At the same time, the Legislature awkwardly attempted to exclude some LGBT discussions from sex ed. Ed Code Section 51932(b) now states:

This chapter does not apply to instruction, materials, presentations, or programming that discuss gender, gender identity, gender expression, sexual orientation, discrimination, harassment, bullying, intimidation, relationships, or family and do not discuss human reproductive organs and their functions.

Although the statutes when taken together are not particularly well constructed, the implication is that parental opt-out rights apply primarily to sex ed, but not necessarily to other discussions of LGBT issues that might arise, say, in a social science class or antibullying assembly. The opt-out right would apply, though, if a discussion in a social science class involved surveys, questionnaires, analysis or evaluation of the students’ beliefs, as protected elsewhere in federal and state law and further explained in the next question and answer below.

Q: Can a teacher ask my child sex-related questions without my knowledge or consent?

A: No. This is one area where both federal and state law protect families. These protections include but extend beyond sex ed or LGBT issues. The controlling federal law is 20 U.S.C. Section 1232h. It is too lengthy to reprint here, but it declares that no minor student may be required, absent written parental consent, to participate in a survey, analysis, or evaluation that would reveal information in any of 8 different areas. Those areas are:

(1) political affiliations or beliefs of the student or the student’s parent;

(2) mental or psychological problems of the student or the student’s family;

(3) sex behavior or attitudes;

(4) illegal, anti-social, self-incriminating, or demeaning behavior;

(5) critical appraisals of other individuals with whom respondents have close family

relationships;

(6) legally recognized privileged or analogous relationships, such as those of lawyers,

physicians, and ministers;

(7) religious practices, affiliations, or beliefs of the student or student’s parent; or

(8) income (other than that required by law to determine eligibility for participation in a program or for receiving financial assistance under such program).

State law is similar but has fewer categories. Ed Code Section 51513 reads:

No test, questionnaire, survey, or examination containing any questions about the pupil’s personal beliefs or practices in sex, family life, morality, and religion, or any questions about the pupil’s parents’ or guardians’ beliefs and practices in sex, family life, morality, and religion, shall be administered to any pupil in kindergarten or grades 1 to 12, inclusive, unless the parent or guardian of the pupil is notified in writing that this test, questionnaire, survey, or examination is to be administered and the parent or guardian of the pupil gives written permission for the pupil to take this test, questionnaire, survey, or examination.

The CHYA modified the requirements of Section 51513 by saying that sex-related assessments can be administered to students in grades 7-12. Parents can still opt out, but parental consent may not be required. In this regard, Section 51938 reads:

(c) Notwithstanding Section 51513, anonymous, voluntary, and confidential research and evaluation tools to measure pupils’ health behaviors and risks, including tests, questionnaires, and surveys containing age-appropriate questions about the pupil’s attitudes concerning or practices relating to sex, may be administered to any pupil in grades 7 to 12, inclusive. A parent or guardian has the right to excuse their child from the test, questionnaire, or survey through a passive consent (“opt-out”) process. A school district shall not require active parental consent (“opt-in”) for these tests, questionnaires, or surveys in grades 7 to 12, inclusive. Parents or guardians shall be notified in writing that this test, questionnaire, or survey is to be administered, given the opportunity to review the test, questionnaire, or survey if they wish, notified of their right to excuse their child from the test, questionnaire, or survey, and informed that in order to excuse their child they must state their request in writing to the school district.

To the extent that state law may now be less protective than federal law, the CHYA yields to 20 U.S.C. Section 1232h. Violation of this federal law can lead to the loss of federal funding, which would be catastrophic for most school districts.

Q: What is required to be included as part of comprehensive sex education?

A: The list in Ed Code Section 51933 is fairly long but is included here:

All comprehensive sexual health education and HIV prevention education pursuant to Section 51934, whether taught or supplemented by school district personnel or by outside consultants or guest speakers pursuant to Section 51936, shall satisfy all of the following criteria:

(a) Instruction and materials shall be age appropriate.

(b) All factual information presented shall be medically accurate and objective.

(c) All instruction and materials shall align with and support the purposes of this chapter as set forth in paragraphs (1) to (5), inclusive, of subdivision (b) of Section 51930 and may not be in conflict with them.

(d) (1) Instruction and materials shall be appropriate for use with pupils of all races, genders, sexual orientations, and ethnic and cultural backgrounds, pupils with disabilities, and English learners.

(2) Instruction and materials shall be made available on an equal basis to a pupil who is an English learner, consistent with the existing curriculum and alternative options for an English learner pupil as otherwise provided in this code.

(3) Instruction and materials shall be accessible to pupils with disabilities, including, but not limited to, the provision of a modified curriculum, materials and instruction in alternative formats, and auxiliary aids.

(4) Instruction and materials shall not reflect or promote bias against any person on the basis of any category protected by Section 220.

(5) Instruction and materials shall affirmatively recognize that people have different sexual orientations and, when discussing or providing examples of relationships and couples, shall be inclusive of same-sex relationships.

(6) Instruction and materials shall teach pupils about gender, gender expression, gender identity, and explore the harm of negative gender stereotypes.

(e) Instruction and materials shall encourage a pupil to communicate with his or her parents, guardians, and other trusted adults about human sexuality and provide the knowledge and skills necessary to do so.

(f) Instruction and materials shall teach the value of and prepare pupils to have and maintain committed relationships such as marriage.

(g) Instruction and materials shall provide pupils with knowledge and skills they need to form healthy relationships that are based on mutual respect and affection, and are free from violence, coercion, and intimidation.

(h) Instruction and materials shall provide pupils with knowledge and skills for making and implementing healthy decisions about sexuality, including negotiation and refusal skills to assist pupils in overcoming peer pressure and using effective decision making skills to avoid high-risk activities.

(i) Instruction and materials may not teach or promote religious doctrine.

Ed Code Section 51934 further provides:

(a) Each school district shall ensure that all pupils in grades 7 to 12, inclusive, receive comprehensive sexual health education and HIV prevention education from instructors trained in the appropriate courses. Each pupil shall receive this instruction at least once in junior high or middle school and at least once in high school. This instruction shall include all of the following:

(1) Information on the nature of HIV, as well as other sexually transmitted infections, and their effects on the human body.

(2) Information on the manner in which HIV and other sexually transmitted infections are and are not transmitted, including information on the relative risk of infection according to specific behaviors, including sexual activities and injection drug use.

(3) Information that abstinence from sexual activity and injection drug use is the only certain way to prevent HIV and other sexually transmitted infections and abstinence from sexual intercourse is the only certain way to prevent unintended pregnancy. This instruction shall provide information about the value of delaying sexual activity while also providing medically accurate information on other methods of preventing HIV and other sexually transmitted infections and pregnancy.

(4) Information about the effectiveness and safety of all federal Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved methods that prevent or reduce the risk of contracting HIV and other sexually transmitted infections, including use of antiretroviral medication, consistent with the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

(5) Information about the effectiveness and safety of reducing the risk of HIV transmission as a result of injection drug use by decreasing needle use and needle sharing.

(6) Information about the treatment of HIV and other sexually transmitted infections, including how antiretroviral therapy can dramatically prolong the lives of many people living with HIV and reduce the likelihood of transmitting HIV to others.

(7) Discussion about social views on HIV and AIDS, including addressing unfounded stereotypes and myths regarding HIV and AIDS and people living with HIV. This instruction shall emphasize that successfully treated HIV-positive individuals have a normal life expectancy, all people are at some risk of contracting HIV, and the only way to know if one is HIV-positive is to get tested.

(8) Information about local resources, how to access local resources, and pupils’ legal rights to access local resources for sexual and reproductive health care such as testing and medical care for HIV and other sexually transmitted infections and pregnancy prevention and care, as well as local resources for assistance with sexual assault and intimate partner violence.

(9) Information about the effectiveness and safety of all FDA-approved contraceptive methods in preventing pregnancy, including, but not limited to, emergency contraception. Instruction on pregnancy shall include an objective discussion of all legally available pregnancy outcomes, including, but not limited to, all of the following:

(A) Parenting, adoption, and abortion.

(B) Information on the law on surrendering physical custody of a minor child 72 hours of age or younger, pursuant to Section 1255.7 of the Health and Safety Code and Section 271.5 of the Penal Code.

(C) The importance of prenatal care.

(10) Information about sexual harassment, sexual assault, sexual abuse, and human trafficking. Information on human trafficking shall include information on the prevalence, nature, and strategies to reduce the risk of human trafficking, techniques to set healthy boundaries, and how to safely seek assistance.

(11) Information about adolescent relationship abuse and intimate partner violence, including the early warning signs thereof.

(b) A school district may provide comprehensive sexual health education or HIV prevention education consisting of age-appropriate instruction earlier than grade 7 using instructors trained in the appropriate courses. A school district that elects to offer comprehensive sexual health education or HIV prevention education earlier than grade 7 may provide age appropriate and medically accurate information on any of the general topics contained in paragraphs (1) to (11), inclusive, of subdivision (a).

Q: How is it determined what is “age appropriate” instruction?

A: This phrase is defined by statute, but the person in the best position to determine what is age appropriate for a child are that child’s parents. Ed Code Section 51931 states:

For the purposes of this chapter, the following definitions apply:

(a) “Age appropriate” refers to topics, messages, and teaching methods suitable to particular ages or age groups of children and adolescents, based on developing cognitive, emotional, and behavioral capacity typical for the age or age group.


While this guide attempts to answer some common questions it is not comprehensive and does not cover many of the contradictions and ambiguities in the law nor the unique facts of each individual situation. This general information does not constitute legal advice, so contact The Pivtorak Law Firm via our website, www.piv4law.com or call us at (323) 999-1112 if you believe your rights have been violated and you need representation.

Former Librarian Sues Smith College for Toxic, Racially Discriminatory Environment and Retaliation

On December 16, 2021 The Pivtorak Law Firm filed a racial discrimination and retaliation lawsuit on behalf of Jodi Shaw, a former employee of Smith College. The complaint, filed in federal district court in Massachusetts, alleges that Smith College “fostered a toxic climate of racial fear, hostility, and exclusion. This was felt most deeply by lower-level employees like Plaintiff Jodi Shaw who, while simply trying to make ends meet, suddenly found themselves thrust into the middle of an ideologically driven campaign of race-essentialism and collective guilt pushed by the school. Specifically, Smith adopted an official policy of viewing every aspect of its operations through a racial lens; one that distorts all whites into malevolent oppressors and all people of color into hapless victims, regardless of any individual’s actual position or status. This policy permeated every decision and action taken by the school.”

The suit identifies many policies and practices at Smith College that led to explicit acts of discrimination and a racially hostile work environment. For instance, Shaw was denied significant career advancement and told by her supervisors that they cancelled an orientation program she planned for incoming students “because you are white.” The school required Shaw to maintain racially segregated student housing, called “affinity houses.” Additionally, Shaw was subject to ritual racial humiliation and was “continually expected to submit to shaming and harassing group race therapy as an ongoing condition of employment.”

The complaint further states, 

[w]hen Shaw objected to these policies and the racially hostile environment at Smith College, defendants retaliated against her, attempted to stymie her efforts to file an internal complaint, and then hedged and delayed their investigation. Defendants steadily removed Plaintiff’s job responsibilities, placed her on furlough, launched a pretextual investigation into her email usage, and deliberately made any further employment at Smith College impossible for Shaw.

This lawsuit is brought pursuant to federal and state civil rights laws, including, 42 U.S.C. § 1981 and Titles VI and VII of the Civil Rights Act and Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 151B, Section 4.

A copy of the complaint can be found HERE.

Critical Race Theory at the Center of Racial Discrimination Class Action Filed Against California State Agency

On October 13, 2020 The Pivtorak Law Firm filed a class action and taxpayer lawsuit in Los Angeles Superior Court against the heads of one of California’s largest state agencies, alleging that they created racially discriminatory policies and practices that are steeped in Critical Race Theory. The suit alleges that Wade Crowfoot, the Secretary of the California Natural Resources Agency and Charlton Bonham, Director for the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, implemented policies that create racial preferences in connection with recruiting, hiring, and other conditions of employment for state employees and which overtly treat people as racial categories rather than individuals.

In the complaint, Plaintiffs allege that, 

[a]fter the national upheaval stemming from the death of George Floyd Defendants started engaging in racially divisive messaging to their employees through work-related emails to class members, official blog posts, and seminars. These communications describe existing and future policies that, on their face, are rooted in [Critical Race Theory]. Defendants’ policies and customs created an atmosphere of racial intimidation in their agencies that caused, and continue to cause, significant harm to Plaintiff and the Class.

The lawsuit alleges that Defendants introduced and justified these policies using methodologies straight out of the Critical Race Theory playbook. The pattern, illustrated by Defendants’ communications to their employees, is revealed in the lawsuit and shows a dialectical structure that mirrors Critical Race Theory’s indoctrination formula. The complaint alleges:

“First, Defendants bring up examples of isolated incidents that they claim, without evidence, are rooted in racism. Second, Defendants use those incidents as ‘proof’ of their conclusory allegation that any racially disparate outcomes in society are the product of racism, even when the claims are belied by empirical evidence.” As alleged, Defendants applied their confirmation bias to inflammatory, aberrational incidents to claim that their white employees were guilty of bolstering “systemic racism” and “white supremacy” purely based on the color of their skin. Further, the Defendants accused these employees - civil servants who have dedicated their entire lives to protecting California’s natural resources - of “perpetuating the violence of the system.” In essence, according to the complaint, Defendants equated all white employees with people who commit actual racial violence if they did not engage in Defendants’ preferred method of political activism.

According to the lawsuit,

Defendants vilify “white folks” not just as racists but as a stand-in for a monolithic oppressor that targets all minority groups like people of “different sexual orientation.” This is one of the fundamental principles of Critical Race Theory: That “whiteness” is a property – a social and institutional status and identity imbued with legal political, economic, and social rights and privileges that are denied to others. As such, all “white folks,” by pure accident of birth, are complicit in racism and personally responsible for its existence and continuation in society.

Using these racially inflammatory beliefs as a backdrop, “[third] Defendants propose to ‘dialogue’ about the issues while making it clear that any opinions opposing the [Critical Race Theory] narrative will be met with retaliation.” Finally, the complaint alleges that Defendants use these baseless accusations against white Americans to justify their ultimate plan: “to implement [Critical Race Theory] in their Agencies through the means of race-based hiring, promotion, and other terms and conditions of employment.” In the lawsuit, Plaintiffs claim that Defendants admit to creating these policies that make race a central factor in employment decisions like recruitment, hiring, promotions, and salaries.  

This lawsuit is brought pursuant to federal civil rights laws, including, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1983, 1985 [First and Fourteenth Amendments] and the California Constitution, Article I, § 31, which prohibits discrimination or the endowment of preferential treatment on the basis of race by state government.

The action also alleges a cause of action under the Taxpayer statute, California Code of Civil Procedure § 526a, which allows lawsuits to stop the government from wasting tax resources on policies and laws that are unlawful.

A copy of the complaint can be found HERE.

Personal Injury Attorneys and Traumatic Brain Injuries

When a loved one is in an accident that results in a serious injury (or even death), it is not uncommon for a family to hire a personal injury attorney to represent their interests.  Medical bills, lost wages, the inability to pay for basic things in life because of a loss of income, pain, rehabilitation, loss of life or loss of the enjoyment of life – these are all things that no one is truly able to understand until they have to go through it.  If a serious injury or death is caused by the negligence of another person, that person needs to be held accountable for the harm they caused.

One of the most serious, but hard to see, injuries that people suffer in accidents is a traumatic brain injury. The CDC defines a traumatic brain injury (TBI) as a disruption in the normal function of the brain that can be caused by a bump, blow, or jolt to the head, or penetrating head injury. Mild traumatic brain injury may affect your brain cells temporarily. More-serious traumatic brain injury can result in bruising, torn tissues, bleeding and other physical damage to the brain. These injuries can result in long-term complications or death. Everyone is at risk for a TBI, especially children and older adults.

CAUSES OF A TRAUMATIC BRAIN INJURY 

According to the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association, this occurrence is referred to as a closed head injury. Closed head injuries can occur when the head hits the steering wheel or side window of the car during an accident. A hard impact can cause the brain tissue to bruise, bleed and swell. Open brain injuries can also occur when flying objects in the car penetrate the skull and damage the brain tissue.

  • In 2014, there were 56,800 TBI-related deaths in the US, including 2,529 deaths among children.

  • Intentional self-harm, unintentional falls, and car crashes were the most common mechanisms of injury contributing to a TBI-related death. These three principal mechanisms of injury accounted for 32.5%, 28.1%, 18.7%, of all TBI-related deaths.

  • Rates of TBI-related deaths per 100,000 population were highest among older adults aged ≥75 years (78.5), those aged 65-74 years (24.7), and individuals 55-64 years (19.1).

SYMPTOMS OF A TRAUMATIC BRAIN INJURY

Brain trauma can result in a constellation of symptoms ranging from mild to profound.  These include, but are not limited to CTE, headaches, loss of memory, fatigue, confusion, problems with impulse control, dementia, intermittent explosive disorder and other mental disorders.  It is now believed that some types of problems associated with TBI can actually get worse over time.

Some of these symptoms may appear right away. Others may not be noticed for days or months after the injury, or until the person resumes their everyday life. Sometimes, people do not recognize or admit that they are having problems. Others may not understand their problems and how the symptoms they are experiencing impact their daily activities.

People that sustain severe head trauma that includes bleeding, open skull injuries, loss of consciousness and comatose activities are always immediately treated by emergency rooms in hospital or urgent care centers. Many diagnostic tools are available to doctors and neurologists today and are extremely helpful in limiting the permanency of brain injuries if immediately used. Cat Scan and Brain MRI are a powerful diagnostic tool to determine whether there is bleeding on the brain or other acute factors inside the head that may impact the treatment and care following a severe and acute traumatic brain injury. If bleeding does exist in the brain early and immediate detection can allow for an evacuation procedure that will drain the blood and prevent further injury to the head and brain.

For some time now, there have been developments that have raised public awareness of the dangers and prevalence of brain injuries.  In January 2016, a federal district judge in Chicago gave preliminary approval to a reworked head injury settlement between student athletes and the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA).  Under the terms of this proposed settlement a seventy-million-dollar fund would be established to test for brain trauma.  In addition, the NCAA is required to strengthen return-to-play rules after a brain injury.  U.S. District Judge John Lee also suggested removing an across-the-board prohibition from future class action lawsuits relating to concussions.  This announcement regarding the NCAA settlement follows an earlier settlement of the National Football League’s (NFL) concussion related lawsuits. The NFL settlement involved the payment of $765 million in potential compensation.

In evaluating the injuries to victims of traumatic brain injury it is important for a personal injury attorney to be able to accurately assess what a client’s present and future problems are or will be, as well as assist the victim and their families understand their legal rights and recover compensation. As medical science learns more about these sometimes-mysterious problems, an attorney will be able to get the client adequate and reasonable compensation for their injuries.

Can a Non-Party’s Bankruptcy Put the Brakes On Your Personal Injury Lawsuit?

Stop me if you’ve heard this one before: A personal injury client is injured in a car accident. The at-fault driver was in the course and scope of employment in a corporate car (yay, deep pockets!). Settlement negotiations have gone nowhere and you decide to file suit against the driver and their employer. In the meantime, the employer’s entire business model has been destroyed by a recent technology that makes the company practically obsolete. So the corporation files for bankruptcy. What happens to your case?

I had a nearly identical issue come up in one of my personal injury cases. My client was injured after being rear-ended by an employee of a large corporation. The employee was driving a company vehicle at the time. Shortly before we filed suit, the corporation filed for a Chapter 11 business bankruptcy (mostly because it failed to adapt to the revolutionary business model of the insurgent new - at the time - company, Netflix.). I won’t name names but let’s just call this corporation “Cropduster.”

So Cropduster filed for bankruptcy and at that point, I knew that if I sued Cropduster as well as the driver our case would be put on indefinite hold (possibly for years) while Cropduster’s reorganization dragged along in the system.  I also knew after all that time my client’s claim against Cropduster would most likely be discharged in the bankruptcy anyway.

Armed with this knowledge, we made a strategic decision and filed suit only against the driver.  Our adversaries, adeptly understanding the ramifications of our choice, tried to halt our lawsuit by claiming that the defendant was protected by the automatic stay in Cropduster’s bankruptcy case.  Our contention was that the defendant, as an agent of Cropduster, was separately liable for her own torts and therefore was independently liable for the car accident.

After much back-and-forth, a motion was filed by the defendant to stay our case while Cropduster’s bankruptcy played out.  We knew that if we lost this motion, the case was ostensibly finished.  Luckily, the law in this area was fairly developed and there was a lot of good precedent for us.

In the Ninth Circuit, two cases specifically discuss these issues in some detail:  In re Chugach Forest Products, Inc. and Matter of Lockard.  But I had to convince the court that these cases applied to our situation even though, factually, they were not 100% on point.  Fortunately, the court in Chugach and Lockard outlined the law substantially enough, allowing us to assert our position with confidence.

The law spelled out in the cases is more or less straightforward:  The automatic stay in bankruptcy protects only the debtor and not third-parties who are independently liable to plaintiff.  The courts have created a very narrow exception to this rule in “unusual circumstances” where there is a very close connection in the financial interests of the debtor and the third-party, where it would cause irreparable harm to the bankruptcy debtor to allow the third-party to be sued.  The third-party’s mere right to indemnification from the debtor, however, is not an unusual circumstance that warrants applying the automatic stay.

As a result, I saw this as a simple issue:  Defendant, as Cropduster’s agent, was independently liable for the rear-end collision and my client’s injuries.  As a result, we were free to bring a personal injury action against only the agent and not Cropduster.  Because Cropduster was not a party to this lawsuit, its bankruptcy should not have any effect on our litigation unless Cropduster could show some irreparable harm to its reorganization efforts as a result.  But Cropduster couldn’t do this because a mere employer-employee connection didn’t put the parties in an interlaced financial relationship where transactions affecting one automatically affected the other.  Furthermore, the employee’s right to indemnification simply wasn’t enough of an “unusual circumstance” under the law to justify putting a stop to our lawsuit.

In the end, the court agreed with our reasoning and declined to suspend our lawsuit because of Cropduster’s bankruptcy.  After being allowed to continue the case was ultimately settled resulting in a very happy and grateful client. The lesson, as always, is if you’re hurt in a car accident (or know someone who is) hire (or refer them to) a personal injury attorney that’s knowledgeable in all the different nuances of law because that can be the difference between recovering money for your injuries or walking away with nothing.

How a Personal Injury Attorney Helps You Pay Your Medical Bills After an Accident

After an accident, the victims are in need of medical attention. Medical aid though, like everything else in today’s world, costs money. Fortunately for victims, the costs of medical bills are recoverable when making a personal injury claim. Converting medical bills into damage awards is a tricky enterprise though, because of the wide range of rules involved in calculating such damage awards. A good personal injury lawyer will know how to navigate these rules to get the best possible recovery for their client.

One such rule is the Collateral Source Rule (CSR). The CSR states that victims can have third parties pay for medical bills without having the amount paid deducted from their damage awards. “Third parties” primarily refers to insurance companies, although the term can include anyone who pays for the bills but is not directly involved in the accident. The CSR applies to both the giving of the awards as well as presentation of evidence to determine what the award should be.

The CSR has a limitation though. In Howell v. Hamilton Meats, the California Supreme Court ruled that the CSR only applies to contracted prices of medical aid, not the actual prices. Suppose, for instance, that the reasonable price for a surgery is $250,000. The victim’s insurance company negotiates the price down to $50,000.  Under the CSR, the victim is only entitled to $50,000 because $50,000 is the victim’s medical bill.  The actual market value of the surgery, $250,000, is not recoverable by the victim because neither the victim nor the victim’s insurance company paid the $250,000. Essentially, victims cannot recover more than what they paid or what third parties paid on their behalf for their medical bills.

An exception to this can be found in the recent case Pebley v. Santa Clara Organics. There, an injured person who had medical insurance decided to treat outside his plan because of the seriousness of the surgery involved. The court ruled that an insured plaintiff who treats outside of their insurance plan on a lien is to be considered an uninsured plaintiff for the purposes of determining reasonable and customary value and that evidence of insurance and/or insurance rates are completely irrelevant. This makes sense because the person who treats outside his plan is responsible for his full medical bills since insurance will not be paying for it. As a result the injured person may recover the full cost of the surgery,regardless of what their insurance company ‘would have’ paid under the plan.

The court went on to discuss the reasons why a person would choose to treat outside their plan:

“There are many reasons why an injured plaintiff may elect to treat outside his or her insurance plan. As [plaintiff] points out, plaintiffs generally make their health insurance choices before they are injured. These choices may be based on the plaintiffs’ willingness to bear the risk posed by a health maintenance organization (HMO) rationing system because the plaintiff is healthy and requires little care. This decision may appear much different after a serious accident, when the plaintiff suddenly needs complex, extensive care that an HMO is not structured to provide… The plaintiff also may wish to choose a physician or surgeon who specializes in treating the specific type of injury involved, but who does not accept the plaintiff’s insurance or any other type of insurance. In addition, health care providers that bill through insurance, rather than on a lien basis, may be less willing to participate in the litigation process.”

Another exception to the Howell rule is if the contracted price is a gift. In personal injury cases, “gifts” cannot be given “for commercial reasons and as a result of negotiations.” The CSR does not apply to discounts, a product of market bargaining. Gifts, on the other hand, come from a “donor’s desire to aid the injured,” and can thus be factored into a victim’s damage award. The gift exception exists because it is a policy which encourages charitable action, which the courts view as being in the public interest. (Howell v. Hamilton).

The Howell limitation to the CSR is a far reaching limitation. Howell applies to insurance provided by employers for on the job injuries, like in Sanchez v. Brooke, where the employee suffered burns and smoke inhalation when the building burned down. It also applies to victims covered by Medicare, like in Luttrell v. Island Pacific Supermarkets, where the elderly plaintiff suffered a hip injury after having an automated door hit him four times. Given Luttrell, there does not appear to be a distinction between private and government insurance, at least when calculating damage awards under the CSR.

Howell applies to presentation of evidence of past and future medical services. Calculating what a medical service is worth can be difficult, especially if the service is done in sessions rather than all at once. The patient may decline to finish the sessions or an unforeseen event may prevent the patient from finishing treatment.

In order to calculate treatment payment which has not been finished yet, courts can use evidence of previous medical services used by the victim to determine how much present treatment might be worth. Similarly, courts can call in medical experts to determine what a future medical service might be worth. A personal injury attorney who’s dealt with accident victims can provide the best advice about how to present such evidence.

Being injured in an accident is a traumatic event for most people. Recovering the money lost from such an accident can be very difficult though, especially after the California Supreme Court’s ruling on tort recovery. However, getting a free consultation from a personal injury lawyer after an accident is always a good idea because that’s your best bet for helping to pay your medical bills.

What Your Insurance Agent Doesn’t Tell You Can Cost You Dearly (Part II)

If you read the first part of this blog on UM/UIM insurance coverage you’re probably wondering what the heck it is and why it’s so darn important to have if you happen to drive in California. More likely you’ve typed the words into Google and already have a basic understanding. But if you enjoy the anticipation of waiting for me to get around to writing these entries, or simply have more questions, here we go:

UM/UIM is short for “uninsured/underinsured” motorist coverage. ‘Ok, what does that mean?’ you’re probably asking. Essentially, if you ever get into an accident that’s not your fault and the other driver has no insurance (or doesn’t have a big enough insurance policy to cover you for all your damages) then your insurance company steps in and pays you. What most people don’t realize after they get into an accident is that your insurance company doesn’t usually pay to have your car fixed or pay for your medical bills resulting from the collision (this does happen in the wonderful world of Subrogation but I see your eyes glazing over so I’ll keep it moving). It may seem that way because you call your company up, report the accident, then go get your car fixed and a check comes in the mail. It’s understandable since you got the money to fix your car so who cares where the check came from! And that’s a valid point. It all sort of gets lost in the shuffle. But if it’s a bad accident with serious damages and injuries, it really matters.

Let’s take an example inspired by one of my cases: Guy Gallant is driving down Santa Monica Blvd. on his way home from work and stops at a red light. Behind him, Gary Goofus* in his old beater is texting and not paying attention to the road. Gary, in keeping with who he is, bought the cheapest liability insurance limits allowed by law, $15,000/$30,000 (per person/per accident). This means that no matter how much damage Gary does with his car and no matter how badly he injures someone, his insurance company will only pay the injured person a maximum of $15,000 ($30,000 total if more than one person is hurt). ‘Well what about Gary’s personal assets?’ you may ask. ‘Can’t you garnish his wages to get more than the $15,000?’ Theoretically, sure. But that brings us back to that famous proverb from Part I of the blog…the thing about getting blood from a stone. I mean, we all have a Gary Goofus in our lives. And a few unfortunate souls are surrounded by them. You know, the one who always ‘forgets’ his wallet – but he’ll get you next time. The one that’s always crashing on someone’s couch because he’s always getting evicted for not paying his rent. The dude who ducks child support payments like he’s in the Matrix. Even if you do win your court case against him and get a large judgment, good luck collecting! That judgment won’t be worth the paper it’s written on.

So back to our story, even though I’m sure you can already guess what happened. Mr. Goofus, still texting and not slowing down for the stopped cars in front of him, slams his beater into the back of Guy’s car. Guy, not expecting any of this, gets tossed around his car like a rag doll with his neck snapping back and forth violently. Both cars are wrecked. Guy is in immediate pain. They call the police. An ambulance takes Guy to the hospital where they check for fractures but don’t do any more intensive testing. If nothing’s broken they just release him with a “whiplash” diagnosis and tell him to see his doctor if the pain doesn’t go away. A few weeks pass and the pain only gets worse. Guy goes to see his doctor who sends him to physical therapy. A couple months of that doesn’t improve his symptoms so he gets a referral to an orthopedist who sends Guy to have some MRI’s done. The scans reveal a herniated disc in his neck. He’ll likely need surgery. But that costs money. And even with that Guy is looking at a lifetime of disability and pain. Gary’s insurance company already offered its $15,000 limits and washed its hands of this case. Gary won’t be asked to contribute anything because that would be pointless. The $15,000 won’t even cover Guy’s surgery. What about his other medical care? What about all the work he’s missed? What about the worst part of all this – Guy’s inability to enjoy his life because of the constant pain he’s in – who’s going to pay for that?

And this is where UM/UIM coverage comes in. If Guy asked his insurance carrier to add that coverage when he was buying his policy it would cover all of his damages over and above the $15,000 paid by Gary’s insurance. For example, if Guy had UM/UIM coverage of $100,000/$200,000 (per person/per accident) he would be entitled to $85,000 from his insurance company to cover his medical expenses, missed work, and pain & suffering ($100,000 per person limits minus $15,000 paid by Gary’s insurance). If Guy really wanted to protect himself and his family he would buy the highest available UM/UIM policy limits, usually up to $1 million (anything above that normally requires buying an umbrella policy). It’s important to note that insurers usually require you to carry liability coverage that is higher or equal to your UM/UIM limits.

The greatest thing about UM/UIM is that adding this coverage to your insurance policy is relatively cheap – only a few dollars a month – compared to what you’re getting in return: Actual protection and the peace of mind in knowing that no matter what happens on the road you’ll be able to financially protect yourself and your family in most circumstances. 

 

* Names have clearly been satirized to protect the guilty.

What Your Insurance Agent Doesn’t Tell You Can Cost You Dearly (Part I)

   “You can't get blood out of a stone”

                                          -Italian Proverb       

One of the hardest parts of my job is having to say “no” to potential clients. These usually fall into four categories: The dog; the wobbler; the ‘out of my wheelhouse’; and the no insurance. The first category is the easiest to turn down. If you’ve ever had a Sovereign Citizen call to tell you that they want to sue the U.S. Government and Elvis Presley for a hundred million dollars because “they did a RICO” it’s quite a relief to know that you dodged that bullet up front rather than six months into litigation. The ‘out of my wheelhouse’ cases are tougher because it’s often someone who may have a legit case but I can’t represent them because it’s not my area of expertise and digesting a century’s worth of Maritime Law in a few short months is neither in my or the potential client’s best interests. Same with the wobblers. Those are also legit cases that I can’t take because of economics or just not having the bandwidth for them at that particular moment. The latter two types of cases I’ll try to refer the clients out to another attorney who specializes in that practice area or who has the ability and desire to take that specific case.

By far the most difficult cases are those where a person is seriously hurt in a car accident but there’s no insurance available to compensate them for their injuries. It often goes something like this: A potential client calls up saying they were in a car crash. They were sitting at a red light or in traffic, minding their own business, and all of a sudden they’re rammed into from behind by someone going way too fast. There’s a ton of damage to the cars and the client is in really bad pain so they have to get transported to the hospital. Later they get some imaging done because the pain doesn’t go away (MRI’s, X-rays, etc.) and the tests reveal a serious problem with their spine, often requiring surgery. Because this is a car accident that happened in California, at some point this client will tell me that the driver that hit them didn’t have any insurance. “Ok” I say, “if you have UM/UIM coverage this may not necessarily be a big deal.” Then the client will ask me, “What’s UM/UIM insurance?” Houston…we have a problem.

So what exactly is UM/UIM insurance? Well, if you’re driving around in California and get into an accident it could be the thing that saves you thousands, and maybe even hundreds of thousands of dollars. Most folks who purchase an auto insurance policy often only think about what happens if they hit someone, or who’s going to pay for their car. That’s called liability coverage. And if you really like your car you’ll get full coverage so that insurance will fix it regardless of who’s at fault in a collision. But what happens to you if you’re injured? Who will pay your medical bills, your time off from work, and – most importantly – for your pain and suffering, your loss of enjoyment of your life? (Ever try enjoying ANYTHING when your back feels like it’s literally on fire? Kind of takes the jam out of your doughnut as the English like to say.)

In Part II of this blog I’ll get into what UM/UIM insurance is, why you need it, and how insanely cheap it is relative to the benefits you receive from it if you’re ever in a car accident.  

Holding an Employer Liable For Injuries Caused By Employees

Picture this: A pizza delivery driver is running behind on schedule. In order to meet his goal, the delivery driver floors the gas pedal when a signal light is about to turn red. Although the driver gets lucky a few times, eventually his luck runs out. He rams a motorcycle as the next signal light changes.

Who should be held liable for the motorcyclist’s injuries in this situation? The pizza delivery driver is the individual most responsible for the motorcyclist’s injuries, but the delivery driver is unlikely to have the money necessary to compensate for the medical bills, let alone the full damage award. Many personal injury attorneys will focus on the employer in situations like this in order to ensure that their client receives the most compensation possible under the law.

Employers can be held accountable for the injuries their employees inflict on others through one of two different theories: direct liability or vicarious liability.

Direct Liability

Direct liability, as the name suggests, is when the employer is directly responsible for the injury. This sounds odd, given that the employer is only responsible through the employee’s involvement. However, an employer can be directly liable when the “employer violated a duty of care it owed to the injured party and this negligence was proximate cause of resulting injury” (De Villers v. County of San Diego). From this case, we can identify three elements of direct liability. First, the employer must owe a duty of care to the injured party. Second, the employer must be negligent. Finally, the employer’s negligence must be the cause of the victim’s injuries.

The first requirement in this theory of liability is the duty between the employer and the injured party. The employer must have a legal obligation to the injured party to exercise a certain amount of care before the employer can be held directly liable. If there is no duty, the case against the employer cannot move forward.

For instance, in De Villers v. County of San Diego, the victim’s family sued the county of San Diego for negligently hiring a drug addicted employee and for allowing that employee to steal enough toxins to poison her husband, the victim. Although the facts suggested the county had been negligent, the court found that the defendant did not owe any duty to the husband’s family. The court ruled that a plaintiff who sues a public employer needs to show that the duty of care owed came from a statute and not just common notions of duty.

Direct liability typically involves negligent hiring, or failure to take reasonable care when hiring someone. “Under California law, an employer may be held directly liable for the behavior of an unfit employee where the employer was negligent in the hiring, training, supervising, or retaining of that employee” (Keum v. Virgin America Inc). In the pizza delivery example, the company could be directly liable if the company knew or could have known that the delivery driver had been responsible for numerous traffic accidents in the past, but retained him anyway.

Vicarious Liability

Vicarious liability is the process of holding a person accountable for the actions of another person, such as the employer-employee relationship (California Civil Code 2338). Vicarious liability involves the employee acting on behalf of the employer. “It is well established that traditional vicarious liability rules ordinary make principals or employers vicariously liable for acts of their agents or employees in the scope of their authority or employment (Meyer v. Holley). Since the employer is expected to be in control of the employee, the employer is at fault when the employee injures another person while the employee is working for the employer.

There are two elements required to hold an employer responsible for the actions of an employee through vicarious liability. First, the employer must have direction or control over the employee’s work. This element eliminates independent contractors from vicarious liability. The employer must be in control of both the methods as well as the goals of business (Valles v. Albert Einstein Medical Center).

The second element, the scope of employment, is more often contested. This element asks whether the employee was “on the job” when the victim was injured. If the employee was working on behalf of the employer, the employer should be responsible for the victim’s injuries because the employer could predict whether the accident would have occurred. One way to determine whether an employee acted within the scope of employment is by deciding whether the employee was on a detour or a frolic. A detour is a minor departure from duties while a frolic is a major departure from duties.

If the pizza delivery driver hit the motorcyclist while driving to a gas station, the delivery driver would be on a detour because gas is necessary for the driver to fulfill complete his job. If the delivery driver had hit the motorcycle on the way to his girlfriend’s house, the delivery driver would be on a frolic.

An employee on a detour is more likely to be in the scope of employment than an employee on a frolic. An employee on a frolic is typically on the frolic for personal reasons unrelated to business. An employee on a detour, however, is still a representative of the employer. For example, in Vasey v. Surrey Free Inns, a manager assaulted a guest after the guest failed to leave the inn. Although the manager was on a detour from typical responsibilities, assaulting a guest was not part of the manager’s job, the manager was still representing the inn during the assault and thus the inn was vicariously liable.

Although the distinction between frolic and detour appears to be clear, technology has made the line fuzzy. In Miller v. American Greetings Corp, the manager of the company was involved in an auto accident on his way to meeting with a probate attorney. Prior to the accident, the manager was on his cell phone with subordinates. However, the phone call was made a few minutes before the crash and it was unclear from the record whether the manger was still on the phone when the accident occurred. Although the courts eventually ruled that the manger was on a frolic, the case could have gone either way.

Direct liability and vicarious liability are the two legal theories personal injury attorneys use to hold an employer liable for victim’s injuries. Direct liability is focused on employer negligence in hiring while vicarious liability is focused on the employee as a proxy for the employer. The two theories sometimes overlap, but they are two distinct theories.

The California Supreme Court made this clear in Diaz v. Caramo. The high Court ruled that if the employer admits to one theory, the employer cannot be liable for the other. Employers can only be accountable for one theory of liability because “employer’s liability cannot exceed that of the employee driver who allegedly caused the accident.” In other words, victims cannot collect more than the harm done to them by the employee.

If the employer is found liable though, the victim is more likely to be compensated for the harm done to them. Contact the Pivtorak Law Firm by calling (415) 484-3009, or click here to request a free, confidential consultation online.