Plaintiff employee appealed the California Court of Appeal’s summary denial of a petition for a writ of mandate for relief from the trial court’s judgment, which granted defendants’, employer and owner, here the real parties in interest, demurrer. Plaintiff alleged that his actions for negligent and intentional infliction of emotional distress and defamation were outside the scope of the workers’ compensation law, Cal. Lab. Code § 3298.3.
Plaintiff employee became a valued general manager of defendant employer and the owner of a distributorship for defendant employer’s products. For no apparent reason, defendant owner began a campaign of harassment against plaintiff during which, among many things, he falsely accused plaintiff of criminal acts and summarily discharged him. After plaintiff’s discharge, defendant owner told his employees that plaintiff was blackmailing him and had stolen $ 800,000 from defendant employer. A labor law lawyer was acting as the court’s referee and analyzed the issues presented. Plaintiff brought suit for intentional infliction of emotional distress and defamation. The court reversed the appellate court’s denial of relief and remanded the case for a decision on the merits. The court rejected plaintiff’s contention that his emotional harm was not covered by Cal. Lab. Code § 3298.3, simply because he suffered no disability and obtained no medical treatment. However, the court instructed the appellate court to examine the hybrid employment relationship between plaintiff and defendants, the seriousness of their conduct, and to determine whether the misconduct exceeded the normal risks of the employment relationship.
The court reversed the summary dismissal of plaintiff employee’s petition for relief and remanded to the appellate court with instructions that an opinion was to be rendered on the issue whether defendants’, employer and owner, here the real parties in interest, conduct was outside the scope and normal risks of employment. The court ruled that the hybrid employment relationship and the seriousness of the allegations were to be examined.
Plaintiff appealed an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County (California) that granted defendants’ motions for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict and for a new trial after the jury found for plaintiff in an action for breach of an implied contract.
Plaintiff filed an action that sought damages for defendants’ use, without compensation, of plaintiff’s idea for a television show format. Plaintiff appealed an order that granted defendants’ motions for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict and for a new trial after the jury found for plaintiff. The court reversed in part and affirmed in part. The court reversed in part by holding that as to one defendant, the circumstances preceding and attending disclosure of plaintiff’s idea supported the implied finding of the jury that there was a contract. The court granted a new trial as to that defendant. The court also affirmed in part by holding that there was no evidence that the co-defendant was a partner or joint venturer with defendant that obligated him to plaintiff.
The court reversed in part and granted a new trial as to one defendant because the evidence supported a legal obligation to compensate under an implied contract, and affirmed in part because, as to the co-defendant, there was no liability in contract.
*
Be the first to comment.