Ihama v. Bayer Corporation

3 Citing cases

  1. Brooks v. Corecivic of Tenn. LLC

    Case No.: 20cv0994 DMS (JLB) (S.D. Cal. Sep. 4, 2020)   Cited 7 times   1 Legal Analyses
    In Brooks v. Corecivic of Tennessee LLC, 2020 WL 5294614 * 5 (S.D. Cal. 2020), the district court rejected the argument, noting that the quoted language was dicta and explaining that differential treatment did not make Turner's "ultimate formulation of the elements of constructive discharge...." Id.

    Negligent supervision claims based on harassment or discrimination have been found to fall outside the workers' compensation system, not because they are based on conduct that is contrary to public policy (although they are), but because harassment and discrimination do not fall within the compensation bargain. See, e.g., Tipton v. Airport Terminal Servs., Inc., No. 218CV09503ABJEMX, 2019 WL 3035095, at *1 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 16, 2019) (addressing negligent supervision claim based on disability discrimination); Lurie v. Konica Minolta Bus. Sols. U.S.A., Inc., No. CV1600787RGKGJS, 2016 WL 7508183, at *1 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 14, 2016) (addressing discrimination claim); Jefferson v. Kellogg Sales Co., No. C 08-04132 SI, 2008 WL 4862511, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 11, 2008) (addressing negligent supervision claim based on racial discrimination); Ihama v. Bayer Corp., No. C 05-03483 WHA, 2005 WL 3096089, at *2-3 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 14, 2005) (addressing negligent supervision claim based on discrimination); Greenfield v. Am. W. Airlines, Inc., No. C03-05183 MHP, 2004 WL 2600135, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 16, 2004) (addressing negligent supervision claim based on sexual harassment). Here, Plaintiff argues her negligent supervision and intentional infliction of emotional distress claims fall outside the compensation bargain because they involve a response to a pandemic, which "was never contemplated as a risk inherent in the employment relationship."

  2. Baird v. Office Depot

    No. C-12-6316 EMC (N.D. Cal. Feb. 18, 2014)

    As the Bagatti court pointed out, the underlying reasoning in City of Moorpark largely supports the conclusion that a failure-to-accommodate claim is not barred under the exclusivity provisions of the Workers' Compensation Act. See id. at 367 (noting that, "in City of Moorpark, the court . . . explain[ed] that disability discrimination 'falls outside the compensation bargain and workers' compensation is not the exclusive remedy'" and, "[a]s we have explained, in section 12940 [of FEHA], the Legislature has made the failure to accommodate a disability equally as important as disability discrimination [-] [j]ust as discrimination on the basis of disability falls outside the compensation bargain, so too the employer's commission of another statutory unlawful employment practice, as defined by subdivision (m) of section 12940, falls outside the compensation bargain"); see also Ihama v. Bayer Corp., No. C 05-03483 WHA, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 30864, at *6-9 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 14, 2005) (concluding that workers' compensation was not the exclusive remedy for plaintiff's FEHA and common law claims; plaintiff had pled, inter alia, that defendant failed to accommodate her disability). Office Depot has failed to demonstrate why a FEHA disability discrimination claim based on failure to accommodate should be treated differently than other FEHA discrimination claims which are not subject to workers' compensation exclusivity under City of Moorpark.

  3. Mathews v. Arrow Wood LLC

    CASE NO. EDCV-07-1316-SGL (?x) (C.D. Cal. Apr. 2, 2009)   Cited 6 times

    Insofar as the negligence claim is concerned, plaintiff argues that defendant was under a duty to supervise and train its apartment manager to not violate the standards set forth in FHA and FEHA, a legal proposition some courts have adopted. See Ihama v. Bayer Corp., 2005 WL 3096089 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 14, 2005); see also Punla v. Terminal Maintenance Co., 2006 WL 708653 *6 n. 3 (N.D. Cal. March 16, 2006) (noting that it is possible to impose a common law duty to supervise arising under the standards set forth in FEHA). Plaintiffs have then submitted unrebutted evidence that defendant (through Mr. Botz) did not train or supervise Mr. Villatoro in meeting and adhearing to the standards set forth in FHA and FEHA.