Employer May Properly Terminate Disabled Employee Based Upon Dangerous Conduct, Not Disability

In Wills v. Superior Court of Orange County, he court held that an employer did not discriminate against an employee in violation of the Fair Employment and Housing Act where it reasonably distinguished between disability-caused workplace misconduct involving threats or violence against coworkers and the employee's disability itself.

You Can Run But You Cannot Hide: Probationary Teacher Cannot Intentionally Avoid Service of March 15 Notice

The Second Appellate District held that a probationary teacher’s willful evasion of service of his employer’s notice of its decision not to reelect him for the following school year defeated the teacher’s claim that he did not receive timely notice of the decision.

The court of appeal affirmed denial of the teacher's (Sullivan's) writ, holding that willful evasion of service excepted the district from the notice requirement.

The court found substantial evidence that the notice of the decision not to reelect Sullivan was frustrated by Sullivan’s actions to avoid service. By Sullivan’s own account, he was aware the district had recommended that he not be reelected. Sullivan admitted he did not wait for the board’s decision on March 13, even though he appeared at the meeting to plead his case. He knew the district would have to personally serve him notice on either March 14 or March 15. He did not attend work on March 14. When he did not receive notice at his residence on March 14, he left his residence for the entire day on March 15, making it impossible to personally serve him. Personal service of the notice of the decision not to reelect Sullivan was thus frustrated by his own attempts to avoid service. Implied in this finding was that Sullivan knew the board’s decision. In these circumstances, Sullivan could not assert failure of service.

Since Sullivan had actual notice of the board’s decision on or before March 15, his petition was properly denied.

Sullivan v. Centinela Valley Union High School District

General Contractor Could Be Liable For Injury To Independent Contractor

The First Appellate District reversed a judgment. The court held that the general contractor on a jobsite could be held directly liable for injuries suffered by a subcontractor’s independent contractor where the general contractor actively engaged in conduct which contributed to the independent contractor’s injuries.

Tverberg v. Fillner Construction, Inc. (2011) __CA4th__

IDEA Does Not Require Full Services For Full Private Placement Reimbursement

The court of appeals affirmed a district court judgment. The court held that the Individuals with Disabilities in Education Act (IDEA)does not require that private school placement provide all services needed by disabled student in order to permit full reimbursement for the costs of sending the student to such a school.

CB v. Garden Grove Unified School District (9 Cir. 2011)

Demoted and Transferred Employee Deemed a "Policymaker" Undercutting Claim of Retaliation

Deputy Bardzik was demoted and transferred by Carona, the Sheriff.

Ordinarily, an elected official may not fire or retaliate against an employee for the employee’s political opinions and activities. An exception exists, however, for “policymaker” employees, given that elected officials must be able to have high-level, loyal employees to help implement the elected official’s policies. Thus high-level, policymaking employees are subject to dismissal if they are no longer loyal to the elected official.

Here, the record demonstrated that in his role as Reserve Division Commander Bardzik was a policymaker. This meant that there was no constitutional violation, and Carona was entitled to qualified immunity, for his purportedly retaliatory demotion of Bardzik.

Bardzik v. County of Orange (9 Cit. 2011)