Employee Can Work Similar Job For Another Employer and Still Get Medical Leave

Assume your employee comes to you and requests medical leave.  You grant the leave, and then later learn that while on medical leave, the employee has been performing a similar job for another employer.  Does this prevent the employee from continuing on the medical leave that you granted?  Not necessarily, according to the recent California Supreme Court opinion in Lonicki v. Sutter Health Central.  According to this opinion, the employee's work for another employer in a similar job is evidence that the employee could have performed the job for the leave-granting employer.  But it is not conclusive evidence.  The court gave an example of an emergency room employee.  An emergency room that treats a high-volume of life-threatening injuries may be far more stressful than similar work in the emergency room of a hospital that sees relatively few injuries.  In addition, one position might be full-time, while the other might be part time.

This ruling will make it harder for California employers to challenge employee medical leave requests, because almost no two jobs are exactly alike.  So long as some distinction can be found between the positions at issue, the employee will have an argument that work for another employer in a similar position does not prevent the employee from remaining on leave.  Employers can take some solace in the fact that this situation is probably fairly rare, although, given this opinion, that may change.  

Metters v. Ralphs Grocery Co.:  Don't Disguise Your Arbitration Agreement

A recent California Appellate Court case, Metters v. Ralphs Grocery Co., sends a clear message to employers:  don't disguise your arbitration agreement if you want it to be enforced.  In Metters, the plaintiff employee wanted Ralphs to internally investigate his claim of discrimination.  Ralphs, however, wanted the employee to first sign off an an ambiguously titled "Notice of Dispute and Request for Resolution Form."  The form contained an area where the employee could set forth discrimination claims.  It contained language indicating that the employee could voluntarily mediate disputes with the company.  And it indicated that the employee, by submitting the form, was agreeing to mandatory, binding arbitration of any "covered disputes" as defined in a "Policy" of Ralphs' that was referenced but not attached, and according to the employee, never provided.  The employee signed the form and submitted it.   

The employee claimed he made numerous attempts to follow up with Ralphs regarding his complaint, but received no response.  He subsequently tried to sue Ralphs for discrimination, and Ralphs moved to compel arbitration.  The employee opposed the motion, claiming that he had never agreed to arbitrate his case. 

The trial court ruled that the employee was not bound to arbitrate his claims.  The court of appeal upheld the trial court's finding that there had been no "meeting of the minds" between the employee and Ralphs regarding arbitration.  The "ambiguous, nebulous form" might have been something a "transactional attorney sitting in an office somewhere" could have determined to be an arbitration agreement, but the employee could not be expected to figure that out.  

The lesson for employers?  Make sure your arbitration agreement looks, smells, and tastes like an arbitration agreement.  Clearly label your agreement, and spell out the consequences for an employee that signs it (waiver of jury trial, specific claims to be arbitrated, etc.)  Make it a stand alone agreement.  If the agreement says something is attached, make sure it is attached. And do not condition the investigation of claims of discrimination, as Ralphs did, on an employee's willingness to sign the agreement.  

[This post does not constitute legal advice. For advice regarding specific situations, seek legal counsel.]