 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Hogan v. City and County of San Francisco10/19/2005
rictions in negotiations as to grievances, an employee suffering emotional distress causing disability may not avoid the exclusive remedy provisions of the Labor Code by characterizing the employer's decisions as manifestly unfair, outrageous, harassment, or intended to cause emotional disturbance resulting in disability." (Cole, supra, 43 Cal.3d at p. 160, emphasis supplied.)
Here, Hogan's claim pertains to the manner in which the Department handled his grievance and its refusal to grant a transfer request which he believed was justified. Such conduct falls squarely within the employment relationship and the compensation bargain. (Cole, supra, 43 Cal.3d at p. 160.) Therefore, the exclusivity rule bars Hogan's emotional distress claim.
Hogan contends that the Department acted outside its proper role as an employer because it violated Hogan's constitutional rights by denying him the benefits of his public employment notwithstanding his vested property right in that employment. Again, we are not persuaded by this creative label. "What matters . . . is not the label that might be affixed to the employer conduct, but whether the conduct itself, concretely, is of the kind that is within the compensation bargain." (Fermino, supra, 7 Cal.4th at p. 718.) Unquestionably, the conduct which Hogan challenges in this case was ordinary employer conduct.
IV. DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
We concur: Kline, P.J., Lambden, J.
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 California Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|