51 Cal.App.5th 1060
Cal. Ct. App.2020Background
- Talley pleaded nolo contendere and was sentenced to 18 days to be served via Fresno County’s Adult Offender Work Program (AOWP) rather than continuous jail; he paid a $180 administrative fee and was assigned to manual labor for the county parks division.
- Talley has a congenital clubfoot requiring a heavy brace that limits mobility; he indicated on intake he had no physical problems that would prohibit participation.
- On the final day of AOWP work he was assigned a gas leafblower, fell on damp metal stairs, and sustained catastrophic foot injuries leading to amputation; he received workers’ compensation benefits.
- Talley sued Fresno County alleging FEHA disability-discrimination claims (failure to accommodate and failure to engage in the interactive process) and tort claims; county moved for summary judgment arguing Talley was not an "employee" under FEHA because he received no financial remuneration and that tort claims were barred by workers’ compensation exclusivity.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for county, finding lack of remuneration precluded FEHA employee status and that workers’ compensation was Talley’s exclusive remedy; Talley appealed and the Court of Appeal affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether an AOWP participant who receives no pay is an "employee" under the FEHA | Talley: FEHA's remedial purpose and statutory wording do not make remuneration dispositive; nonmonetary benefits (avoiding jail) suffice | County: Lack of direct or indirect financial remuneration precludes employee status under the threshold-remuneration test (Mendoza/Estrada) | Court: Adopted the threshold-remuneration approach; absence of substantial financial remuneration precludes FEHA "employee" status; SJ affirmed |
| Whether nonfinancial benefits (e.g., avoiding jail) constitute sufficient remuneration | Talley: Avoiding incarceration, safer setting, and credit against jail constitute remuneration | County: Those benefits are incidental, not quantifiable financial remuneration; workers' compensation coverage is not pay | Court: Nonfinancial benefits here were incidental and not quantifiable/substantial; workers' compensation is compensatory for injury, not remuneration; not sufficient |
| Whether Talley's negligence claim is barred by workers' compensation exclusivity | Talley: Argued negligence could be alternative if not an FEHA employee | County: Workers' compensation is exclusive remedy for industrial injury | Court: Trial court correctly found workers' compensation exclusive; Talley did not adequately contest the ruling on appeal (substantive challenge waived) |
| Whether the trial court improperly weighed credibility regarding voluntariness of AOWP participation | Talley: Trial court improperly discredited his declaration and resolved credibility on summary judgment | County: Deposition testimony showed he had the option to jail; declaration equivocal | Court: Subjective, uncorroborated declaration did not create a triable issue; any error was not prejudicial |
Key Cases Cited
- Mendoza v. Town of Ross, 128 Cal.App.4th 625 (Cal. Ct. App. 2005) (held absence of remuneration precludes FEHA employee status)
- Estrada v. City of Los Angeles, 218 Cal.App.4th 143 (Cal. Ct. App. 2013) (applied Mendoza; workers' compensation coverage alone does not constitute remuneration)
- Community for Creative Non-Violence v. Reid, 490 U.S. 730 (U.S. 1989) (adopted common-law agency factors to evaluate employment relationships)
- O'Connor v. Davis, 126 F.3d 112 (2d Cir. 1997) (held unpaid intern not an "employee" under Title VII absent remuneration)
- U.S. v. City of New York, 359 F.3d 83 (2d Cir. 2004) (recognized that substantial, quantifiable nonwage benefits can satisfy remuneration threshold)
- Arriaga v. County of Alameda, 9 Cal.4th 1055 (Cal. 1995) (nonmonetary remuneration can count where it is quantifiable, e.g., credit against a fine)