Products Liability and Injury Lawyer Blog

Barbosa v. IMPCO Technologies, (Fourth District, November 30, 2009) 179 Cal.App.4th 1116, 101 Cal.Rptr.3d 923

A man who was terminated from his job as a carburetor assembler for mistakenly claiming overtime pay to which he was not entitled, filed an action for wrongful termination. The plaintiff contended that although he had had a reasonable good faith belief that he was entitled to unpaid overtime, when he discovered the mistake and offered to pay the money back to the payroll department he was subsequently terminated for cheating the company.

After the plaintiff completed presentation of his case, the trial court granted the former employer’s motion for a non-suit, finding that there is no public policy requiring an employer to continue to employ an at-will employee who has made an unjustified claim for monies. However, the court of appeal reversed, holding that public policy protects an employee from being terminated for making a good faith but mistaken claim to overtime:

Continue reading "WRONGFUL TERMINATION: MISTAKEN OVERTIME CLAIM" »

Oddone v. Superior Court, (Second District, November 24, 2009) 179 Cal. App. 4th 813, 101 Cal.Rptr.3d 867, 09 Cal. Daily Op. 14,124

A woman whose husband died as a result of a brain tumor allegedly caused by exposure to toxic chemicals at his place of employment, filed an action on her own behalf against the employer. The plaintiff alleged that her husband’s clothing absorbed chemical substances he was using in connection with his employment, and that the substances would remain on his skin, causing her to be exposed to the chemicals as a result of her contact with her husband. The plaintiff further alleged that the defendant had breached duties to warn and to safely operate its premises to protect spouses and family members of employees from coming into contact with chemical substances used at its facility, thereby causing the plaintiff to suffer secondary chemical exposure.

The trial court sustained the defendant’s demurrer without leave to amend. The court of appeal denied the plaintiff’s petition for a writ of mandate, concluding that the trial court correctly found that the defendant did not owe a duty of care to the plaintiff to protect her from secondary exposure to toxic chemicals:

Continue reading "TOXIC CHEMICALS: SECONDARY EXPOSURE" »