Walrath v. Sprinkel

California Court of Appeal Jul 2, 2002 No. A096146Published

Before: Ruvolo

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that individual supervisors may be held personally liable for retaliation under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) and that common law claims for wrongful discharge in violation of public policy are not subject to the exhaustion of administrative remedies rule. Consequently, the Supreme Court's decision in Reno v. Baird, which bars individual supervisor liability for discrimination, does not extend to retaliation claims.

Issues

Whether a supervisor may be held personally liable for retaliation under the Fair Employment and Housing Act.
Whether a common law cause of action for wrongful discharge in violation of public policy requires the exhaustion of administrative remedies.

Disposition. reversed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“We conclude that Reno v. Baird is not controlling and that the court erred in granting Sprinkel's motion for summary judgment.”

“We conclude that appellant pleaded a triable issue of fact as to his fourth cause of action for terminating him in retaliation for his complaints against age discrimination in violation of the public policy set forth in the FEHA.”

121 Cal.Rptr.2d 806 (2002) 99 Cal.App.4th 1237 Richard WALRATH, Plaintiff and Appellant,

Stephen SPRINKEL, Defendant and Respondent.

No. A096146. Court of Appeal, First District, Division Two.

July 2, 2002. [807] Law Offices of Sandra J. Springs, Oakland, Daniel C. Payne, Jr., Esq, San Francisco, for Appellant.

Miller, Morton, Caillat & Nevis, LLP, Joseph A. Scanlan, Jr., Esq, David I. Kornbluh, Esq, San Jose, for Respondent.

RUVOLO, J.

Plaintiff Richard Walrath appeals from the summary judgment granted in favor of defendant Stephen Sprinkel, president of Hatcher Press, Inc., in an action against Hatcher Press and Sprinkel alleging wrongful termination and age discrimination in violation of the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), retaliation, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The action against Hatcher Press proceeded to trial, and Walrath recovered a jury verdict for both conventional and punitive damages.

The essential issue presented is whether appellant's cause of action against his supervisor for retaliation is barred by Reno v. Baird (1998) 18 Cal.4th 640, 76 Cal. Rptr.2d 499, 957 P.2d 1333. We conclude that Reno v. Baird is not controlling and that the court erred in granting Sprinkel's motion for summary judgment. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment.

II.

Appellant was employed by Hatcher Press from 1976 through February 2000. For purposes of the summary judgment motion, defendants conceded that Sprinkel was appellant's supervisor. In the spring of 1995, Sprinkel advised all employees in the pre-press department, including appellant, that Hatcher Press was committed to a transition from conventional pre-press to electronic pre-press using computers. Sprinkel told everyone in the pre-press department that Hatcher would pay for them to take unlimited classes at the Graphic Arts Institute of San Francisco (GAI) to aid in the transition. Appellant took two introductory courses in 1995 and took no further classes until 1999, when he took five more classes.

Walrath v. Sprinkel

AI Brief

RUVOLO, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

III.

NOTES

AI Brief