 |
|
|
|
September 2004 
Vol. 10 No. 4 ISSN 1087-6219
Copyright and Trademark Notice | Disclaimer
Use the Newsletter Link to request a free e-mail subscription to the newsletter.
The Riverside division of the Fourth District Court of Appeal has ruled that a high school student did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in his gym locker. Therefore, marijuana found during a search of a backpack that he had put in the locker was admissible in his juvenile proceeding.
An anonymous caller told a high school safety officer that Cody S. had a knife in his backpack. She had him escorted to her office with the belongings that he had put in his gym locker, including his backpack. Cody claimed that his escorts removed the belongings. Cody at first denied that he had a knife, but then admitted that he had one in one of the zippered compartments of his backpack.
The safety officer opened one of the compartments, and found three baggies that contained marijuana residue. She then opened another compartment and found a knife. She opened a third compartment, and found a baggie that contained marijuana. She then searched Cody's trousers that had been retrieved from the gym locker and found $190 in his wallet.
After the trial court denied his motion to suppress, Cody admitted to the allegation in the juvenile petition that he possessed a knife on school grounds. He appealed the denial of his motion to suppress.
Although students in public schools have a reasonable expectation of privacy in their persons, and in the personal effects that they bring to school, school officials may conduct searches based on reasonable suspicion, which is a lower standard than probable cause. Further, school policies may limit the expectation of privacy with respect to belongings stored in school lockers. Here, gym lockers could only be used to store street clothes and other possessions while the student was in gym class. Cody had no expectation that his street clothes and backpack would remain in his gym locker indefinitely.
When the school escorts removed Cody's belongings, they did not search them. Therefore, they did not need reasonable suspicion for their actions. Once he got to the safety officer's office, Cody's admission that he had a knife provided all the reasonable suspicion necessary to justify the search of his backpack.
People v. Cody S., 121 Cal. App. 4th 86 (2004).
Table of Cases to check current
status of decisions.
Subject Index
Top of this Page
The Third District Court of Appeal in Sacramento has ruled that employees of a subsidiary acquired by a new parent company have a third party beneficiary claim against the new parent, if it does not live up to its promises regarding termination and severance pay.
Gores Technology purchased all the stock of VeriFone from Hewlett-Packard. As part of the stock purchase agreement, Gores promised not to terminate any VeriFone employees during the first 60 days after the purchase, and to offer severance benefits approximately equivalent to those that Hewlett-Packard had offered during its ownership of VeriFone. The agreement stated that it was not intended to confer any rights on persons who were not named parties to the agreement.
Gores terminated several VeriFone employees within one week of the purchase, and did not offer severance packages equivalent to Hewlett-Packard's. Four of them sued for breach of contract on a third party beneficiary theory.
Although the agreement recited that it did not confer benefits on third parties, its substantive provisions established that the parties intended to grant job retention benefits to VeriFone employees. Therefore, the terminated employees were entitled to enforce the severance provisions of the stock purchase agreement.
Prouty v. Gores Technology Group, 2004 WL 1921970 (Cal. Ct. App. Aug. 30, 2004).
Table of Cases to check current
status of decisions.
Subject Index
Top of this Page
The California Supreme Court has ruled that an employer may have a claim for intentional interference with its employment relationship with its employees, so long as it can show an independently wrongful act beyond the mere extension of a job offer.
Daniel Hanlon and Colin Greene left a law firm established by Robert Reeves, and took several employees and clients with them. There was evidence that they engaged in improper activities such as destroying computer files, refusing to report on the status of pending cases, misappropriating confidential information and cultivating employee discontent.
Although an at will employee may terminate his or her employment at any time without obligation to the employer, the employer has an economic interest in the relationship. When a third party intentionally interferes with that relationship, tort law recognizes a right to sue for damages.
In this case, the Reeves firm suffered $20,000 in damages from recruiting replacement employees. There was no question that Hanlon and Greene engaged in wrongful conduct beyond the mere extension of job offers. It did not matter that the wrongful conduct did not relate directly to the solicitation of the firm's employees.
Reeves v. Hanlon, 33 Cal. 4th 1140 (2004).
Table of Cases to check current
status of decisions.
Subject Index
Top of this Page
The Fifth District Court of Appeal in Fresno has ruled that discharging an employee because he complained about fraudulent billing practices violates fundamental public policy, and subjects the employer to tort liability for wrongful termination.
Michael Haney was a route sales representative for Aramark, which rented uniforms, towels and other materials to its customers. He complained to various members of Aramark management about alleged fraudulent billing practices that caused customers to pay for supplies that they neither needed nor used. There was no evidence that he complained to any enforcement authorities. According to Haney, he was later fired for having made those complaints.
The Court of Appeal ruled that Haney's complaints about conduct that could have amounted to the crime of theft by fraud was protected by California public policy. Therefore, he had a viable claim for wrongful termination in violation of public policy.
Haney v. Aramark Uniform Serv., Inc., 17 Cal. Rptr. 3d 336 (Ct. App. 2004).
Table of Cases to check current
status of decisions.
Subject Index
Top of this Page
Subsequent treatment of decisions reported on in earlier issues:
Catholic Charities of Sacramento, Inc. v. Superior Court (June 2004 issue), petition for certiorari filed (May 28, 2004).
Grace v. eBay, Inc. (August 2004 issue), now reported at 120 Cal. App. 4th 984 (2004), petition for review filed (Aug. 24, 2004).
Peart v. Ferro (July 2004 issue), review denied (Sep. 1, 2004).
Rojas v. Superior Court (August 2004 issue), now reported at 33 Cal. 4th 407 (2004).
Schwarzenegger v. Fred Martin Motor Co. (August 2004 issue), now reported at 374 F.3d 797 (9th Cir. 2004).
Table of Cases to check current
status of decisions.
Subject Index
Top of this Page
Copyright © 2004 Calvin House. Appellate Counsellor® and Appellate Decisions Noted® are registered marks used in commerce by Calvin House since 1995. All rights to those marks are claimed. |
Calvin House |
