Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Save to My Library
Look up keyword
Like this
1Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Union Argument That Sherles Was Not an SEIU Local 1000 Employee

Union Argument That Sherles Was Not an SEIU Local 1000 Employee

Ratings: (0)|Views: 61 |Likes:
Published by jon_ortiz
Union Argument That Sherles Was Not an SEIU Local 1000 Employee
Union Argument That Sherles Was Not an SEIU Local 1000 Employee

More info:

Categories:Business/Law
Published by: jon_ortiz on Dec 19, 2013
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

12/29/2013

pdf

text

original

 
4 5 6 7 8 9
10
11
12
13
14
15 16
17 18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25 26
27 28
NDORSEID
PAUL
 E. HARRIS,
 III
Chief
 Counsel
 SBN
 180265
 ^^^^ ' J. FELIX DE LA TORRE, SBN
 204282
 ^ zii3^S=^^ SERVICE EMPLOYEES
 INTERNATIONAL
 UNION 'SACRA%^mqqOyF{TS
LOCAL
 1000 esA ^TAyE-
 E/^^LX^^^S
 J^TGRM^VT6)£ei;#53-#54
8 8
 14th Street vj oaci^i it>oo
Sacramento,
 California 95811
Telephone:
 (916)
 554-1279
Facsimile:
 (916)
 554-1292
Attorneys for
 Defendant Service Employees
International Union, Local 1000 and Maria
 Patterson
SUPERIOR
 COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
CITY
 AND
 COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO MECHELLE
 SHERLES
 and ROBYN SHERLES, Plaintiffs, vs. STATE EMPLOYEES
INTERNATIONAL
 UNION LOCAL 1000, etal,
Defendants/Respondent.
Case
 No.
 34-2011-00114745
Hearing
 Reservation
 Nos.
 1671736
 and
1709062.
REPLY BRIEF IN
 SUPPORT
 OF DEMURRER
 AND
 MOTION TO STRIKE BY DEFENDANTS SERVICE EMPLOYEES
 INTERNATIONAL UNION
 LOCAL 1000
 AND
 MARIA
PATTERSON TO COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
Date:
 July 24, 2012 Time: 2:00 p.m.
Dept:
 53 Hon. David
 I.
 Brown Complaint Filed:
 November
 29, 2011 TrialDate:
 None
I.
 INTRODUCTION
Plaintiffs' FEHA and whistleblower
 claims
 are
 based
 entirely on the
 false assumption that
 an
 employment contract
 or
 common-law employment relationship existed
 between
 the
 parties.
 However,
 Plaintiffs failed to
 allege
 sufficient
 facts under
 the Bradley
 court's analysis
 to
 establish that Service Employees
REPLY BRIEF IN
 SUPPORT
 OF DEMURRER AND MOTION TO STRIKE BY DEFENDANTS SERVICE EMPLOYEES
INTERNATIONAL
 UNION LOCAL 1000 AND
 MARIA
 PATTERSON TO COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1
 
 
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10
11
12
13
14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21
22
23
24
25 26
27 28
International
 Union,
 Local
 1000
 ( Local
 1000 ) or
 Maria
 Patterson ( Patterson ) acted as the employer of either
 Plaintiff.
 Accordingly,
 the demurrer as to the First,
Eighth,
 and Fifteenth
 Causes
 of
 Action
 must be sustained
 without
 leave to amend.
Plaintiffs
 admit that their
 claim
 for negligent
 infliction
 of emotional distress was improperly plead. As such. Defendants' demurrer to the Seventh
 Cause
 of
Action
 should be sustained
 with
 leave to amend.
Plaintiffs
 concede that
 Local
 1000 cannot be held liable under section 52.4 of the
 Civil
 Code. As such, Defendants' demurrer to the Tenth
 Cause
 of
 Action
 must be sustained as to
 Local
 1000
 without
 leave to amend.
 Plaintiffs
 further concede that their references to section 52 of the
 Civil
 Code in the Tenth
 Cause
 of
 Action
were erroneous. Thus, Defendants'
 motion
 to strike must also be granted.
With
 respect to the Bane Act
 violation
 alleged in the Thirteenth
 Cause
 of
Action,
 Plaintiffs only
 raise two instances of
 intimidation
 and/or threats vmder this
cause
 of action.
 Plaintiffs
 allege that
 Local
 1000 threatened Mechelle Sherles ( Sherles ) not to go public
 with
 her complaint, and that
 Local
 1000 investigators engaged in a
 series
 of
 intimidating
 practices. Neither of
 these
 allegations are
sufficient
 to establish Sherles'
 claim
 of false imprisonment. Moreover, a
 claim
 of false imprisonment
 will
 not implicate a
 violation
 of the Bane Act
 unless
 the
 claim
includes a factual allegation of violence, or a threat of violence. No such factual allegations exist in the current Complaint. The Court should therefore sustain the demurrer to the Thirteenth
 Cause
 of
 Action
 without
 leave to amend.
IL
 ARGUMENT
A.
 The
 First
 Cause of
 Action
 fails to state a claim against
 Local
 1000 or
Maria
 Patterson because neither Defendant is Mechelle Sherles employer
Local
 1000 and Patterson demurred to the First
 Causes
 of
 Action
 because
neither Mechelle Sherles nor Robyn Sherles have standing to sue under
 FEHA.
FEHA
 protects
 only
 an employee, an applicant, or a person
 providing
 services pursuant to a contract
from
 harassment.
 (Cal. Gov. Code, § 12940(j).)
 Plaintiffs
REPLY BRIEF
 IN
 SUPPORT OF
 DEMURRER
 AND MOTION
 TO
 STRIH5
 BY
 DEFENDANTS SERVICE EMPLOYEES
INTERNATIONAL UNION LOCAL
 1000
 AND
 MARIA
 PATTERSON
 TO
 COMPLAINT
 FOR
 DAMAGES
2
 
 
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10
11
12
13
14
15 16
17 18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25 26
27 28
mistakenly
 rely
 upon the Bradley
 case
 to support their contention that
 Sherles
 was either an employee or a person
 providing
 services pursuant to a contract under
FEHA.
 However, the Bradley
 case
 is easily distinguished under the facts alleged in the Complaint. The Bradley
 case
 involved
 a social worker temporarily
 working
 for the
California
 Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation ( CDCR ) under a contract
CDCR
 maintained
 with
 a national medical registry.
 {Bradley
 v.
 California
Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (2008) 158 Cal.App.4'^^ 1612.) The contract between CDCR and the medical registry granted all control of the employment relationship to
 [CDCR],
 not the registry.
{Id.,
 at 1627.) The existence
of
 an employment contract between
 Sherles
 and
 Local
 1000 or Patterson is a fact noticeably
 absent
 from
 the Complaint. The memorandum of understanding
( MOU )
 between the
 State
 of
 California
 and
 Local
 1000 is not an employment contract. Rather, the MOU is a contract setting
 forth
 the wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment mutually negotiated by the parties for all bargaining
 unit
 members pursuant to the Ralph C.
 Dills
 Act. (Cal. Gov. Code § 3512 et seq.) The Complaint
 fails
 allege
 sufficient
 facts to establish that the MOU constitutes an employment contract under
 FEHA.
 Moreover, the Complaint is also
devoid
 of any factual allegations that the
 State
 of
 California
 gave
 all control of the employment relationship to either
 Local
 1000 or Patterson.
 Without
 establishing that an employment contract existed between
 Sherles
 and Defendants, the holding
in
 Bradley cannot be applied to the
 present
 case.
The Bradley court also examined the common-law requirement that the employer exercise direction and control over the
 person's
 work.
 The court noted, the existence of the
 right
 of control is often tested by determining whether, if instructions were given, they
 would
 have
 to be obeyed and whether there was a
right
 to terminate the service at any time.
{Bradley,
 158
 Cal.App.4*^1^
 at 1625.) Once again,
 Sherles
 fails
 to allege any facts in the Complaint that
 Local
 1000 or
REPLY BRIEF
 IN SUPPORT OF
 DEMURRER
 AND MOTION
 TO
 STRIWD
 BY
 DEFENDANTS SERVICE EMPLOYEES
INTERNATIONAL UNION LOCAL
 1000
 AND
 MARIA
 PATTERSON
 TO
 COMPLAINT
 FOR
 DAMAGES
3

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->