Rope v. Auto-Chlor System of Washington, Inc.
220 Cal. App. 4th 635
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Rope was hired September 7, 2010 as branch manager for Auto-Chlor.
- He planned to donate a kidney to his disabled sister in February 2011 and requested leave.
- DPA enacted to provide 30 days paid organ-donor leave (effective January 1, 2011).
- Rope was fired December 30, 2010, two days before DPA took effect.
- Rope alleged DPA violations, Labor Code violations, FEHA discrimination, and public policy wrongful termination; trial court sustained demurrers without leave to amend.
- Court affirmed in part and reversed in part, remanding for proceedings on FEHA associational and public policy claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Retroactivity of the DPA to pre-enactment conduct | Rope contends DPA should apply to February 2011 leave. | DPA is prospective; retroactive application not intended. | DPA cannot be applied retroactively; action insufficient under DPA. |
| Associational discrimination under FEHA | Rope asserts discrimination based on association with a disabled relative. | No direct evidence of association-based discrimination. | Sustaining demurrer reversed; FEHA associational claim stated. |
| Failure to maintain a discrimination-free environment under FEHA | Linked to successful associational claim; environment claim should stand. | Dependent on underlying discrimination claim. | Remanded; environment-free claim survives with associational claim. |
| Wrongful termination in violation of public policy | Termination violated FEHA/public policy due to association with disabled sister. | No viable public-policy discharge claim. | Remanded; wrongful termination claim revived alongside associational/discrimination claims. |
Key Cases Cited
- Elsner v. Uveges, 34 Cal.4th 915 (Cal. 2004) (presumption against retroactivity; clear legislative intent required for retroactive liability)
- McClung v. Employment Development Dept., 34 Cal.4th 467 (Cal. 2004) (statutory retroactivity and changes in law)
- Evangelatos v. Superior Court, 44 Cal.3d 1188 (Cal. 1988) (retroactivity requires express language or clear implication)
- Larimer v. International Business Machines Corp., 370 F.3d 698 (7th Cir. 2004) (illustrative taxonomy for association-based discrimination (expense category))
- Yanowitz v. L’Oréal USA, Inc., 36 Cal.4th 1028 (Cal. 2005) (protected activity and causation standards under FEHA)
- Lujan v. Minager, 124 Cal.App.4th 1040 (Cal. App. 2004) (preemptive retaliation considerations under whistleblower provisions)
- Gelfo v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 140 Cal.App.4th 34 (Cal. App. 2006) (scope of disability discrimination under FEHA/ADA comparison)
- Iwekaogwu v. City of Los Angeles, 1999 () (protection for oppositional activity under FEHA)
- Jones v. Department of Corrections & Rehabilitation, 152 Cal.App.4th 1367 (Cal. App. 2007) (FEHA prima facie framework for discrimination)
- Harris v. City of Santa Monica, 56 Cal.4th 203 (Cal. 2013) (disability discrimination standards under FEHA)