MARCH 2006

II. JUDICIAL UPDATES

California Court of Appeal Holds That Anti-Violence and Intimidation Statutes May Be Asserted Against Employers

California Civil Code section 51.7 provides that all persons have the right to be free from violence and threat of violence based upon, among other things, race, religion, ancestry, national origin, political affiliation, sex, or position in a labor dispute. California Civil Code section 52.1 allows individuals to pursue civil actions for damages associated with interference, by threats, intimidation or coercion, with the exercise of constitutional or other rights provided by law.

In Stamps v. Superior Court, employee Robert Stamps (“Employee”) sued his employer and his supervisor (collectively, “Employer”) for retaliation, violence, and intimidation by threat of violence. Employee, an African-American, alleged that his supervisor verbally harassed him with racist remarks, yelled at him in an intimidating manner, threatened him with physical violence for not completing work assignments, and generally placed him in unsafe work situations without proper equipment and training, all on account of his race. Employer’s alleged lack of concern for Employee’s safety resulted in an injury that caused several of Employee’s toes to be amputated. Employee was then discharged as a result of his injury.

Employee sued Employer for, among other things, violation of Civil Code sections 51.7 and 52.1. Employer argued that these statutes were enacted to stem “hate crimes” in society, and do not apply to employers. After reviewing the legislative and judicial histories of the statutes, the California Court of Appeal for the Second Appellate District disagreed, holding that “The staggering impact of cases of workplace violence based on race, religion and other classifications described in these statutes is unfortunately known to us too well. . . . Given this obvious state of affairs, we find it odd that the legislature intended to exclude employment discrimination, workplace violence, and similar cases based on race or other characteristics from the protections of these statutes. The legislative history reveals no such intent.”

NEXT: Appellate Court Reduces Punitive Damages Award