 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Caesar v. Asian Rehabilitation Services11/29/2005
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
Irvin Caesar appeals from summary judgment entered against him in this action for wrongful termination. We conclude that judgment was properly entered on his causes of action based on the Fair Employment and Housing Act (Gov. Code, § 12940 et seq.; FEHA) and on the Americans with Disabilities Act (42 U.S.C. § 12102 et seq.; ADA). We also conclude that summary judgment was properly granted on the cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress. We shall affirm the trial court as to these causes of action. We find, however, that there is a triable issue of material fact on the cause of action for wrongful termination in violation of public policy. We reverse that portion of the judgment and remand for further proceedings on that cause of action.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL SUMMARY
Respondent Asian Rehabilitation Services, Inc. (ARS) is a nonprofit corporation providing job training, job coaching, and employment opportunities for individuals with physical and mental disabilities. In August 2001, ARS hired appellant as project manager of the janitorial service program at a federal courthouse in downtown Los Angeles. He was an at-will employee, supervising disabled and non-disabled employees. The program was operated pursuant to a contract with the United States General Services Administration (GSA) which required employers to pay a specified prevailing wage. (See 41 U.S.C. § 351.)
Sometime within the first two months after appellant began work, he learned that ARS was not paying overtime or the prevailing wage to employees under his supervision. A week or two later, he brought this to the attention of Stan Hicks, Director of Programs for ARS. He also spoke with the on-site GSA building manager and senior property manager about the issue. They provided appellant with a copy of the contract between GSA and ARS, which provided that ARS employees working at the federal courthouse were to be paid no less than $7.59 per hour, the prevailing wage mandated by federal law.
In January 2002, appellant met with Stan Hicks to discuss what he had been told by GSA management. Hicks admitted ARS was not paying the required prevailing wage, and indicated it would not do so. Appellant reported the conversation to his employees, and suggested they send a letter of complaint to Hicks. This January 8, 2002 letter, which appellant helped prepare, requested a meeting with Hicks to address "several concerns that require your immediate attention with regards to our wages." It was signed by the employees, some of whom were disabled, and some of whom were not. Appellant sent courtesy copies to the Board of Directors of ARS and to GSA.
A GSA representative met with Hicks on January 11, 2002, and instructed him that ARS must pay the prevailing wage to its employees at the federal courthouse. On January 25, 2002, the employees were paid what was owed to them.
In March 2002, Hicks met with GSA management to discuss terminating appellant. In April, appellant received several written memos critical of his work. Despite the fact that appellant had been honored by ARS as Employee of the Year in December 2001, and by GSA as Project Manager of the Year in early May 2002, he was terminated on May 22, 2002.
Appellant brought this action against ARS for wrongful termination. Although his initial c
Page 1 2 3 4 California Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|