An employer terminated an employee who was absent on approved medical leave, but engaged in outside employment in violation of company policy. After an 11-day arbitration hearing, the arbitrator relied on the federal “honest belief” defense and rejected the employee’s claim that the employer violated the employee’s right to reinstatement under the Moore–Brown–Roberti Family Rights Act (CFRA) (Gov. Code, §§ 12945.1, 12945.2) and its federal counterpart, the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 (FMLA) (29 U.S.C. §§ 2601–2654). The trial court confirmed the arbitrator’s award, but the Court of Appeal vacated the award in the employer’s favor.
We granted review to determine whether, in the absence of an express agreement between the parties, courts may review and vacate (or correct) an arbitration award involving both an employee’s unwaivable statutory rights and an employer’s written policy forbidding outside employment while on leave. We conclude that although the arbitrator may have committed error in adopting a defense untested in our court, any error that may have occurred did not deprive the employee of an unwaivable statutory right because the arbitrator found he was dismissed for violating his employer’s written policy prohibiting outside employment while he was on medical leave. Accordingly, we reverse the Court of Appeal’s judgment.
Augustus v. ABM Security Services CA2/1 B243788, filed 12/31/14, pub. ord. 1/29/15)Duty During Rest Breaks
Plaintiff Jennifer Augustus and others, formerly security guards employed by defendant ABM Security Services, Inc. (hereafter ABM), allege on behalf of themselves and a class of similarly situated individuals that ABM failed to provide rest periods required by California law in that it failed to relieve security guards of all duties during rest breaks, instead requiring its guards to remain on call during breaks. The trial court certified a class and granted plaintiffs’ motion for summary adjudication, concluding an employer must relieve its employees of all duties during rest breaks, including the obligation to remain on call. Plaintiffs then moved for summary judgment on the issue of damages, seeking unpaid wages, interest, penalties, attorney fees and an injunction. Finding no triable issue as to whether ABM was subject to approximately $90 million in statutory damages, interest, penalties, and attorney fees, the court granted the motion.
The summary adjudication and summary judgment orders rest on the premise that California law requires employers to relieve their workers of all duty during rest breaks. We conclude the premise is false, and therefore reverse the orders. We affirm the certification order.
Mays-Williams v. Williams (9th Cir. 13-35069 1/28/14) ERISA
The panel reversed the district court’s summary judgment in an ERISA interpleader action seeking a determination as to the proper beneficiary of proceeds under two employee benefit plans.
The plan participant formally designated his wife as his beneficiary. After their divorce, he designated his son as beneficiary over the telephone but did not sign and return beneficiary designation forms.
The panel held that the beneficiary designation forms were not “plan documents” governing the plan administrator’s award of benefits under 29 U.S.C. § 1104(a)(1)(D). The panel concluded that there was a triable issue as to whether, under state law, the plan participant strictly or substantially complied with the governing plan documents’ requirements for changing his beneficiary designation. The panel remanded the case for further proceedings.