The People v. Christiansen
216 Cal. App. 4th 1181
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Christiansen was charged with four counts of conflict of interest under §1090 and a misconduct allegation; she was found guilty by a jury and sentenced to prison with restitution.
- The 2005 District contract labeled Christiansen an employee; the 2006 contract reclassified her as an independent contractor and terminated the employee relationship while preserving duties.
- The 2008 contract with Strategic Concepts, LLC (assignable to Christiansen) again treated Strategic Concepts as an independent contractor and required certain insurance and hour-based compensation.
- In 2007 Christiansen assigned her interest in the 2006 contract to Strategic Concepts; the District later contracted with Strategic Concepts in 2008 for bond-funded projects.
- The key issue is whether §1090 applies to a person who was never a District officer, member, or employee, i.e., whether an independent contractor can be criminally liable under §1090; the court held she was not an employee and reversed the convictions, vacating sentence and restitution and directing dismissal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Christiansen was an employee under §1090 | People argued she could be treated as an employee under §1090. | Christiansen contends she was an independent contractor at all relevant times. | Independent contractor not an employee; §1090 not applicable. |
| Whether an independent contractor can be an 'employee' for criminal liability under §1090 | People rely on civil decisions expanding 'employee' to include contractors. | California Housing and HUB City misapply civil interpretation to criminal statute. | Criminal liability does not extend to independent contractors; reverse and dismiss. |
Key Cases Cited
- Reynolds v. Bement, 36 Cal.4th 1075 (Cal. 2005) (statutory interpretation when undefined terms use common law tests of employment)
- California Housing Finance Agency v. Hanover/California Management & Accounting Center, Inc., 148 Cal.App.4th 682 (Cal. App. 2007) (civil interpretation expanding 'employees' under §1090 not adopted in criminal context)
- HUB City Solid Waste Services, Inc. v. City of Compton, 186 Cal.App.4th 1114 (Cal. App. 2010) (civil interpretation of 'employees' not adopted for criminal §1090 liability)
- People v. Palma, 40 Cal.App.4th 1559 (Cal. App. 1995) (analysis of common-law definition of 'employee' for statutory interpretation)
- Gnass v. State of California, 101 Cal.App.4th 1271 (Cal. App. 2002) (predecessor discussions on 'employee' term in §1090)
- S. G. Borello & Sons, Inc. v. Department of Industrial Relations, 48 Cal.3d 341 (Cal. 1989) (definitions of employment for other statutory contexts; common-law test cited)
- People v. Honig, 48 Cal.App.4th 289 (Cal. App. 1996) (common-law employment discussion in §1090 context)
- Campagna v. City of Sanger, 42 Cal.App.4th 533 (Cal. App. 1996) (pre-1963 discussion of 'employee' term in §1090)
- Stigall v. City of Taft, 58 Cal.2d 565 (Cal. 1962) (early interpretation of employment term in §1090)
- Thomson v. Call, 38 Cal.3d 633 (Cal. 1985) (employment interpretation in statutory context)
- Klistoff v. Superior Court, 157 Cal.App.4th 469 (Cal. App. 2007) (independent contractor status; relevance to §1090)