Estrada v. City of Los Angeles
159 Cal. Rptr. 3d 843
Cal. Ct. App.2013Background
- Frank Estrada served 17 years (from 1990) as an unpaid Los Angeles Police Reserve Officer; reserve officers are volunteers who "serve gratuitously" and receive a uniform, equipment, and a $50 per deployment reimbursement.
- Estrada suffered on-duty injuries in 1995 and 1996 and received workers’ compensation benefits provided by the City under a municipal ordinance that deems reserves employees only for workers’ compensation purposes.
- In 2004–2007 Estrada was investigated and ultimately terminated from the Reserve Corps after an Internal Affairs personnel complaint relating to off-duty conduct; he filed administrative Skelly submissions before termination.
- Estrada sued the City asserting FEHA disability discrimination (other causes were dismissed or withdrawn); the threshold legal question was whether Estrada was an "employee" under FEHA.
- The trial court held as a matter of law that Estrada was not an employee for FEHA because he was an unpaid volunteer appointed to a non-classified reserve position, not appointed to the City’s classified civil service; judgment for the City was entered and Estrada appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Estrada was an "employee" under FEHA and thus could bring a discrimination claim | Estrada: FEHA is statewide; its broad definition and DFEH regulations encompass volunteers appointed to positions, so he is an employee despite lack of salary | City: Los Angeles charter, civil service rules and ordinances govern municipal appointments; reserves were appointed to volunteer (non-classified) posts and the City’s deeming reserves employees only for workers’ compensation does not make them FEHA employees | Court: Held Estrada was not an employee for FEHA—he was a volunteer appointed to a non-classified reserve position, unpaid, and therefore cannot maintain a FEHA claim |
Key Cases Cited
- Shephard v. Loyola Marymount Univ., 102 Cal.App.4th 837 (plaintiff must be an employee to recover under FEHA; unpaid volunteers not employees)
- Mendoza v. Town of Ross, 128 Cal.App.4th 625 (volunteer appointee to non-classified post not an employee for FEHA; remuneration is essential to employee status)
- Skelly v. State Personnel Bd., 15 Cal.3d 194 (procedural due process in public employment disciplinary proceedings)
- Community for Creative Non-Violence v. Reid, 490 U.S. 730 (multi-factor test for distinguishing employees from independent contractors/agents)
- U.S. v. City of New York, 359 F.3d 83 (use of federal factors to assess employee status; remuneration as essential element)
- Pietras v. Board of Fire Com’rs. of Farmingville, 180 F.3d 468 (volunteer firefighters granted employee status where substantial benefits indicated employment relationship)
- Bell v. Industrial Vangas, Inc., 30 Cal.3d 268 (purpose of workers’ compensation is to compensate for employment-related risks)