Davis v. Kiewit Pacific CA4/1
162 Cal. Rptr. 3d 805
Cal. Ct. App.2013Background
- Davis, a female box grader operator, worked on Kiewit’s $170 million All American Canal project; she faced lengthy issues with inaccessible and unsanitary portable toilets and a retaliatory environment after complaining.
- She complained to site management about toilet access and cleanliness; Preedy, the project manager, and Lochner, the EEO officer, were informed but actions were not taken.
- Davis reported the incident of feces and a pornographic magazine in a women’s toilet on January 18, 2008; no investigation followed.
- Davis filed a FEHA complaint in October 2008 alleging discrimination, harassment, retaliation, and failure to prevent; she also claimed wage issues.
- Kiewit sought summary judgment or adjudication, including on punitive damages; the trial court granted adjudication on punitive damages; a jury then found Kiewit liable on FEHA claims.
- On appeal, the court reversed the punitive damages adjudication and remanded for further proceedings to determine if Preedy or Lochner are managing agents and whether punitive damages are warranted.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Are Preedy and Lochner managing agents under Civil Code 3294(b)? | Davis argues Preedy and Lochner exercise substantial discretionary authority over significant company policy. | Kiewit argues neither Preedy nor Lochner are officers, directors, or managing agents with policy-determining authority. | Triable issues exist regarding both Preedy and Lochner as managing agents; summary adjudication improper. |
| Did the trial court err by granting summary adjudication on punitive damages? | Davis contends a jury should decide whether managing agents ratified oppressive conduct. | Kiewit contends no managing agent engaged in or ratified such conduct and thus punitive damages are unavailable as a matter of law. | Yes, error; remand for proceedings consistent with the opinion. |
Key Cases Cited
- White v. Ultramar, Inc., 21 Cal.4th 563 (1999) (managing agent standard requires substantial discretionary authority over policy)
- Cruz v. HomeBase, 83 Cal.App.4th 160 (2000) (relevance of managing agent inquiry for punitive damages)
- Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co., 25 Cal.4th 826 (2001) (summary judgment standard and burden-shifting in civil actions)
- Lochner v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 140 Cal.App.4th 34 (2006) (illustrates evaluating managing agent status in punitive damages context)