Ventura v. ABM Industries Inc.
150 Cal. Rptr. 3d 861
Cal. Ct. App.2012Background
- Ventura sued ABM Industries Incorporated, ABM Janitorial Services, Inc., and American Building Maintenance Company for negligent hiring and supervision and for violation of Civil Code section 51.7 (Ralph Act); Manzano was her supervisor and alleged perpetrator; the jury found in Ventura’s favor on several theories including violence, ratification, threats, negligent hiring/supervision, with damages and penalties.
- Ventura testified that Manzano repeatedly flirted, body-checked, and assaulted her; he also drank on the job and pressured or touched other female employees; she reported concerns but believed complaints would be ignored and sought transfers.
- Defendants conducted an internal investigation, produced some witness statements, but failed to interview certain witnesses and did not discipline Manzano; Ventura’s credibility and the investigation’s thoroughness were contested.
- The jury’s verdict included damages for violence of Manzano toward Ventura, ratification of defendants’ knowledge and approval of the conduct, threats of violence with a sex-based motive, and negligent hiring/supervision; Ventura was awarded $100,000 in compensatory damages and a $25,000 civil penalty under §51.7; punitive damages were not awarded.
- Ventura sought attorney’s fees under §51.7; the trial court awarded $550,000; on appeal, the court addressed whether the §51.7 claim was barred by workers’ compensation, the propriety of adding §51.7 by amendment, the reach of §51.7 in employment contexts, evidentiary rulings, and the fee award; the judgment was affirmed on all counts except as noted in the concurrence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether negligent hiring/supervision is barred by workers’ compensation | Ventura | ABM argued workers’ comp barred claim | Waived; substantial evidence supports negligence claim. |
| Whether Ventura could amend to add §51.7 claim | Ventura sought to add §51.7 claim | Defendants argued amendment prejudicial | Proper; court permissive in allowing amendment without prejudice. |
| Whether §51.7 applies in employment context | §51.7 applicable to employment harassment | §51.7 not applicable to employment; limited to hate crimes | Applicable; §51.7 applies to employment harassment/actions. |
| Whether §51.7 requires hate/motive (animus) | Harassment need not be hate-motivated | Hate motivation required | No requirement that hate motive be proved; acts may violate §51.7 without explicit hate. |
| Whether evidentiary and instructional rulings (CACI 204, ratification, suppression evidence) were correct | Evidence and instructions supported verdict | Rulings prejudicial or improper | Rulings upheld; instructions and admissibility properly supported the verdict. |
Key Cases Cited
- Doney v. Tambouratgis, 23 Cal.3d 91 (Cal. 1979) (burden to plead/workers’ comp defense; jurisdictional issue raised by defendant)
- Lucich v. City of Oakland, 19 Cal.App.4th 494 (Cal. App. 1990s) (discusses when workers’ compensation applies in employment actions)
- Stamps v. Superior Court, 136 Cal.App.4th 1441 (Cal. App. 2006) (employment context for §51.7; legislative history relied on)
- Venegas v. County of Los Angeles, 32 Cal.4th 820 (Cal. 2004) (discusses scope of §52.1 and discriminatory intent; relation to §51.7)
- Winarto v. Toshiba America Electronics Components, 274 F.3d 1276 (9th Cir. 2001) (discusses bias/motive in hate-related statutes; interpretation guidance)
- Ramirez v. Wong, 188 Cal.App.4th 1480 (Cal. App. 2010) (discusses hate-crimes statutes and related provisions)
- Harvard-Westlake School v. D.C., 176 Cal.App.4th 836 (Cal. App. 2009) (discusses 'hate crimes' labeling and related provisions)
- Cabesuela v. Browning-Ferris Industries of California, Inc., 68 Cal.App.4th 101 (Cal. App. 1998) (interprets §51.7 with §52.1 in context of hate crimes)