200 Cal. App. 4th 983
Cal. Ct. App.2011Background
- Lt. Pantuso, a Navy reservist, was terminated after reporting upcoming deployment and returning from deployment.
- Pantuso sued Safway Services and two supervisors under Military and Veterans Code §394(a),(d) for discrimination and retaliation.
- The trial court overruled the demurrer against the individual supervisors, holding they could be liable under §394.
- Defendants moved for writ of mandate to strike the individual liability, arguing supervisors cannot be personally liable.
- The court of appeal agrees that §394 permits employer liability but not personal liability for supervisors acting in regular management duties.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §394 subjects supervisors to personal liability. | Pantuso argues individuals are liable under §394. | Safway argues only employers may be liable. | No personal liability for supervisors. |
| Should FEHA interpretations control §394 liability analysis? | Pantuso relies on FEHA cases (Janken, Reno, Jones). | Safway argues FEHA reasoning should guide interpretation. | Apply FEHA reasoning to §394; individuals not liable. |
| Should USERRA or other federal authorities force personal liability under §394? | Pantuso cites USERRA to justify personal liability. | Defendant disputes USERRA applicability to §394. | USERRA analysis not adopted; not controlling. |
| Is the term 'person' in §394 inherently ambiguous, requiring legislative clarity? | Pantuso asserts broad reading could include individuals. | Defendant contends ambiguity does not compel personal liability. | Language does not attach personal liability to supervisors. |
Key Cases Cited
- Janken v. GM Hughes Electronics Corp., 46 Cal.App.4th 55 (Cal. App. Div. 1st Dist. 1996) (harassment vs. discrimination; supervisors not liable for discrimination; liability limited to employers)
- Reno v. Baird, 18 Cal.4th 640 (Cal. 1998) (employer liability under FEHA; individuals not liable for discrimination/retaliation; agency interpretation of 'employer')
- Jones v. Lodge at Torrey Pines Partnership, 42 Cal.4th 1158 (Cal. 2008) (rejected personal liability for retaliation; weighs harm and policy concerns)
- Accardi v. Superior Court, 17 Cal.App.4th 341 (Cal. App. 1993) (harassment vs. discrimination distinction; personal liability allowed for harassment, not discrimination)