64 Cal.App.5th 247
Cal. Ct. App.2021Background
- Plaintiff Theodore Bruni worked for Hotel Casa del Mar in two stints: ~June 2017–April 2018 (about 10 months; he voluntarily resigned for scheduling reasons) and July 2018–October 31, 2018 (part‑time; laid off after <4 months when employer eliminated part‑time positions for economic reasons).
- Bruni sued under the Santa Monica "recall ordinance" (SMMC ch. 4.66), which grants rehiring preference to "laid off employees" who were employed "for six months or more" and whose most recent separation was for economic, non‑disciplinary reasons.
- Bruni alleged his earlier employment period could be aggregated with the later stint to meet the six‑month threshold and that the Hotel failed to offer him available server positions.
- He also asserted a Tameny tort claim (wrongful failure to rehire in violation of public policy) predicated on the recall ordinance.
- The trial court sustained the Hotel’s demurrer with leave to amend, the first amended complaint was struck to permit appeal, judgment of dismissal was entered, and Bruni appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether separate periods of employment can be aggregated to satisfy the ordinance's "six months or more" requirement | Bruni: his earlier ~10‑month employment plus the later stint exceed six months and thus make him a "laid off employee" entitled to recall rights | Hotel: the ordinance protects workforce stability of involuntarily laid‑off workers; employment continuity matters and periods ending in voluntary resignation should not count | Court: An earlier period that ended with a voluntary resignation cannot be aggregated with a later period that ended in layoff to meet the six‑month requirement; Bruni was not eligible for recall |
| Whether a Tameny public‑policy tort lies based on the recall ordinance | Bruni: the ordinance embodies a public policy promoting workforce stability, so Hotel's failure to recall supports a Tameny claim | Hotel: a municipal ordinance (and limited local recall scheme) cannot supply the fundamental state or federal public policy required for a Tameny claim; also no ordinance violation was pled | Court: Tameny claim fails — Bruni did not show a violation of the ordinance, and a municipal ordinance cannot, by itself, be the predicate for a Tameny public‑policy tort; nonrenewal/failure to rehire alone is insufficient |
Key Cases Cited
- Tameny v. Atlantic Richfield Co., 27 Cal.3d 167 (Cal. 1980) (recognized tort for discharge in violation of fundamental public policy)
- Gantt v. Sentry Insurance, 1 Cal.4th 1083 (Cal. 1992) (public‑policy tort must be grounded in constitutional or statutory sources)
- Simpson Strong‑Tie Co., Inc. v. Gore, 49 Cal.4th 12 (Cal. 2010) (rules of statutory interpretation; may reject literal reading if contrary to legislative intent or absurd)
- Russ Bldg. Partnership v. City & County of San Francisco, 44 Cal.3d 839 (Cal. 1988) (ordinances are construed under the same principles as statutes)
- Green v. Ralee Engineering Co., 19 Cal.4th 66 (Cal. 1998) (statutorily authorized regulations may be sources of fundamental public policy)
- Tower Lane Properties v. City of Los Angeles, 224 Cal.App.4th 262 (Cal. Ct. App. 2014) (de novo review of ordinance interpretation)
- T.H. v. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp., 4 Cal.5th 145 (Cal. 2017) (de novo review standard for sustaining a demurrer)