May 21, 2013 | Bulletin No. 1022573.1

In 2008, the Sonoma County Board of Supervisors (“County”) acted to cap the county’s contributions for health care benefits for retired employees at $500 per month.  The Sonoma County Association of Retired Employees (“Association”) filed a lawsuit against the County in federal district court for breach of contract claiming that for decades, the County had implicitly promised its employees health benefits after retirement.  The court ruled that the Association failed to show an express agreement by the County to provide health care benefits to retirees in perpetuity and dismissed the Association’s case without leave to amend its complaint.  The Association appealed. (Sonoma County Ass'n of Retired Employees v. Sonoma County, --- F.3d ----, C.A.9 (Cal.), February 25, 2013).

May 21, 2013 | Bulletin No. 1023522.1

An employee who was fired after she exhausted all of her leave under the Pregnancy Disability Leave Law (“PDLL”) brought a lawsuit against her former employer for discrimination and retaliation under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”).  The court of appeal held that an employee who has exhausted all of her leave under PDLL may nevertheless state a cause of action under FEHA.  (Sanchez v. Swissport, Inc. (--- Cal.Rptr.3d ----, Cal.App. 2 Dist., February 21, 2013).

April 29, 2013 | Bulletin No. 1026909.1

The Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board (“Board”) awarded compensation to a probation officer for psychiatric injury based on a medical evaluator’s opinion that personnel actions were not a substantial cause of the officer’s psychiatric injury.  Part of the officer’s claim rested on the fact that he had “feelings he was unsupported by his supervisors.”  The officer’s employer raised the “personnel action defense.”  The medical evaluator concluded that the officer’s feelings about his supervisors did not constitute a personnel action.  The court of appeal held that the Board erred by accepting the medical evaluator’s opinion regarding what constitutes a personnel action instead of looking to the record for evidence of what caused the officer’s feelings about his supervisors.  (County of Sacramento v. Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board (--- Cal.Rptr.3d ----, Cal.App. 3 Dist., April 22, 2013).

March 27, 2013 | Bulletin No. 1024340.1

In Nelson v. Jurupa Unified School District (PERB Decision 2309E, March 8, 2013), the Public Employment Relations Board ("PERB") considered whether a school district committed an unfair labor practice by rejecting a teacher’s grievance because she was on the district's 39-month reemployment list after she had exhausted all her sick leave.  PERB affirmed the ALJ’s ruling that teachers on the 39-month reemployment list remain employees of the district and have the right to file grievances against the District.