Salas v. Sierra Chemical Co.
30 Am. Disabilities Cas. (BNA) 17, 327 P.3d 797, 59 Cal. 4th 407 (2014)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The doctrines of after-acquired evidence and unclean hands do not serve as a complete bar to an employee's discrimination or retaliation claims under California's Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA). While such evidence of employee wrongdoing can limit available remedies, such as by cutting off lost wages from the date of the employer's discovery, it does not absolve the employer of liability for its own unlawful conduct.
Facts:
- In April 2003, Vicente Salas applied for a seasonal job with Sierra Chemical Co., providing a Social Security number and resident alien card which he certified as authentic on federal employment forms.
- Salas was hired and worked seasonally for Sierra Chemical for several years, using the same Social Security number each time he was recalled.
- In late 2004 or early 2005, Salas received a letter from the Social Security Administration stating that his name and Social Security number did not match agency records.
- Salas alleged that a manager, Leo Huizar, learned of this and similar letters received by other workers and told them not to worry about the discrepancies.
- In 2006, Salas sustained two back injuries at work and filed a workers' compensation claim.
- After being laid off seasonally in December 2006, Salas was not recalled to work in the spring of 2007.
- Salas alleged that Huizar told him in March 2007 that he could not return to work while still under a doctor's care for his injuries.
Procedural Posture:
- Vicente Salas sued Sierra Chemical Co. in a state trial court for disability discrimination and retaliation under the FEHA.
- During litigation, Sierra Chemical learned Salas had used a false Social Security number to gain employment.
- Sierra Chemical filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing Salas's claims were barred by the after-acquired evidence and unclean hands doctrines.
- The trial court initially denied the motion.
- Sierra Chemical sought a writ of mandate from the Court of Appeal, which issued an alternative writ.
- In response, the trial court vacated its order and granted summary judgment in favor of Sierra Chemical.
- Salas, as the appellant, appealed the judgment to the Court of Appeal.
- The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's grant of summary judgment, holding that Salas's claims were completely barred.
- Salas petitioned the Supreme Court of California for review.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Do the legal doctrines of after-acquired evidence and unclean hands provide a complete defense, barring all recovery, to an employee's discrimination and retaliation claims under California's Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) when the employer discovers after the alleged wrongful act that the employee used fraudulent documents to obtain employment?
Opinions:
Majority - Kennard, J.
No. The doctrines of after-acquired evidence and unclean hands are not complete defenses to an employee's claims under the FEHA. The court reasoned that allowing after-acquired evidence to completely bar relief would eviscerate the strong public policy of the FEHA, which is to eliminate workplace discrimination. Adopting the U.S. Supreme Court's reasoning in McKennon v. Nashville Banner Publishing Co., the court held that an employer cannot use later-discovered misconduct to escape liability for its own discriminatory acts. However, the employee's wrongdoing is relevant to the remedy; generally, backpay should be calculated from the date of the unlawful discharge to the date the employer discovered the information that would have led to a lawful termination. Similarly, the equitable defense of unclean hands cannot wholly defeat a claim based on a public policy expressed in a statute. The court also held that federal immigration law (IRCA) preempts state law remedies for lost pay for any period after an employer's discovery of an employee's work ineligibility, but does not preempt such remedies for the period before discovery.
Concurring - Baxter, J.
No, summary judgment was improper, but the majority's reasoning on federal preemption is incorrect. While concurring in the judgment to reverse the summary judgment, this opinion strongly disagreed with the majority's preemption analysis. The concurrence argued that the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Hoffman Plastic Compounds, Inc. v. NLRB is controlling and dictates that federal immigration policy, as expressed in IRCA, preempts any award of post-termination lost wages to an unauthorized alien who obtained a job through criminal fraud. The concurrence posits that allowing such an award, even for the pre-discovery period, directly conflicts with and undermines federal immigration law by rewarding the fruit of a criminal act. The concurrence agreed to reverse summary judgment only because the record did not definitively establish that Salas was, in fact, an alien ineligible for employment.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies the application of equitable defenses in California employment discrimination law, particularly in cases involving undocumented workers. By rejecting the after-acquired evidence and unclean hands doctrines as complete defenses, the Court ensures that employers cannot use an employee's misrepresentations about immigration status or qualifications as a shield to escape liability for their own discriminatory or retaliatory acts. The decision aligns California's standard with the federal McKennon rule, thereby protecting the public policy goals of the FEHA. The Court's preemption analysis carefully balances state and federal interests, preserving state-level protections for workers while respecting the federal mandate to terminate unauthorized employees upon discovery of their status.
