Since I primarily practice litigation in these two fields, real property and labor law, it has caught my eye that the rights and obligations of the parties in rental and employment contexts have many similarities. To see just a few, consider the holdings I highlighted in this post.
1. A Valuable Right To Remain In Relationship.
Employee's ("EE") right to continued employment is held as a valuable right, just as the tenant's ("TT") right to continued use of the rented property. Compare:
TT: "The right of a tenant to the continued use of his rented property is a substantial and valuable right and until it has been judicially determined that such right has been forfeited because of the failure to meet certain conditions in the rental agreement, such as the obligation to pay rent, the right is entitled to judicial protection." Mihans v. Mun. Ct., 7 Cal.App.3d 479, 484 (1970)
EE: "When the employee already is employed under an enforceable agreement, however, the employer is the party that must provide new consideration in exchange for the employee's agreement to forgo the valuable right to job security." Asmus v. Pacific Bell, 23 Cal.4th 1, 35 (2000).
EE: "We begin with the consideration that these statutes ( Ed. Code, § 13403 et seq.) have as their object the termination of a valuable right of a permanent employee, that of continued employment. They are to be strictly construed." Hankla v. Governing Bd., 46 Cal.App.3d 644, 649 (1975).
EE: An employee may not waive overtime protections. Arechiga v. Dolores Press, 192 Cal.App.4th 567, 572 (2011). On further restriction against private agreements around statutes see an article here, addressing post-Arechiga amendment of the statute. Teacher-employee may not waive his tenure rights. Covino v. Governing Bd., 76 Cal.App.3d 314 (1977).
TT: From the California Civil Code, Section 1953(b): "Any provision of a lease or rental agreement of a dwelling by which the lessee agrees to modify or waive a statutory right, where the modification or waiver is not void under subdivision (a) or under Section 1942.1, 1942.5, or 1954, shall be void as contrary to public policy unless the lease or rental agreement is presented to the lessee before he takes actual possession of the premises."
5. While Both Can Still Settle.
TT: A tenant can waive through settlement, for a valuable consideration. Kaufman v. Goldman, 195 Cal.App.4th 734, 745 (2011).
EE: An employee can too, and such settlement is not a waiver in the context of California Civil Code, Section 3513. Gregory Cooper v. Yeager Skanska, Defendant And Respondent, 2007 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 4547, 10, 2007 WL 1620612 (2007) [this is an unpublished case].
1. A Valuable Right To Remain In Relationship.
Employee's ("EE") right to continued employment is held as a valuable right, just as the tenant's ("TT") right to continued use of the rented property. Compare:
TT: "The right of a tenant to the continued use of his rented property is a substantial and valuable right and until it has been judicially determined that such right has been forfeited because of the failure to meet certain conditions in the rental agreement, such as the obligation to pay rent, the right is entitled to judicial protection." Mihans v. Mun. Ct., 7 Cal.App.3d 479, 484 (1970)
EE: "When the employee already is employed under an enforceable agreement, however, the employer is the party that must provide new consideration in exchange for the employee's agreement to forgo the valuable right to job security." Asmus v. Pacific Bell, 23 Cal.4th 1, 35 (2000).
EE: "We begin with the consideration that these statutes ( Ed. Code, § 13403 et seq.) have as their object the termination of a valuable right of a permanent employee, that of continued employment. They are to be strictly construed." Hankla v. Governing Bd., 46 Cal.App.3d 644, 649 (1975).
2. Employees And Tenants Are Considered in Unequal Bargaining Position.
EE: "Procedural unconscionability focuses on whether the arbitration provision was the result of oppression or surprise due to unequal bargaining power between the employer and employee."
O'Hare v. Municipal Resource Consultants, 107 Cal.App.4th 267, 282-283 (2003).
EE: "Procedural unconscionability focuses on whether the arbitration provision was the result of oppression or surprise due to unequal bargaining power between the employer and employee."
O'Hare v. Municipal Resource Consultants, 107 Cal.App.4th 267, 282-283 (2003).
TT: "Due process is not offended by a rent control statute designed to protect tenants from asymmetries in bargaining power so long as the property owner can earn a fair return; to conclude otherwise would be to render most rent control statutes virtually meaningless."
Besaro Mobile Home Park v. City of Fremont, 204 Cal.App.4th 345, 358 (2012).
3. This Is Why Statutes Protect Them.
EE: "We have also recognized that statutes governing conditions of employment are to be construed broadly in favor of protecting employees." Murphy v. Kenneth Cole Productions, 40 Cal.4th 1094, 1103 (2007).
Besaro Mobile Home Park v. City of Fremont, 204 Cal.App.4th 345, 358 (2012).
3. This Is Why Statutes Protect Them.
EE: "We have also recognized that statutes governing conditions of employment are to be construed broadly in favor of protecting employees." Murphy v. Kenneth Cole Productions, 40 Cal.4th 1094, 1103 (2007).
TT: "[M]any statutes and ordinances serve to protect tenants against unreasonable lease provisions and restrictions." Golden Gateway Center v. Golden Gateway Tenants Assn., 26 Cal.4th 1013, 1035, (2001).
4. And This Is Why Employees And Tenants May Not Generally Waive Those Protections.
4. And This Is Why Employees And Tenants May Not Generally Waive Those Protections.
EE: An employee may not waive overtime protections. Arechiga v. Dolores Press, 192 Cal.App.4th 567, 572 (2011). On further restriction against private agreements around statutes see an article here, addressing post-Arechiga amendment of the statute. Teacher-employee may not waive his tenure rights. Covino v. Governing Bd., 76 Cal.App.3d 314 (1977).
TT: From the California Civil Code, Section 1953(b): "Any provision of a lease or rental agreement of a dwelling by which the lessee agrees to modify or waive a statutory right, where the modification or waiver is not void under subdivision (a) or under Section 1942.1, 1942.5, or 1954, shall be void as contrary to public policy unless the lease or rental agreement is presented to the lessee before he takes actual possession of the premises."
5. While Both Can Still Settle.
TT: A tenant can waive through settlement, for a valuable consideration. Kaufman v. Goldman, 195 Cal.App.4th 734, 745 (2011).
EE: An employee can too, and such settlement is not a waiver in the context of California Civil Code, Section 3513. Gregory Cooper v. Yeager Skanska, Defendant And Respondent, 2007 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 4547, 10, 2007 WL 1620612 (2007) [this is an unpublished case].
Since Section 3513 addresses public policy ["a law established for a public reason cannot be contravened by a private agreement"], revisit the above-cited Kaufman case, to read on court's reasoning that favoring settlements is no less important public policy that one in providing safe housing. (Kaufman, Id. at 745-747).
6. Or Both Can Be Let Go For Almost Any Reason.
For tenants, there is a shorter stated rule. TT: "[A] landlord may normally evict a tenant for any reason or for no reason at all, but he may not evict for an improper reason." Barela v. Super. Ct., 30 Cal.3d 244 (1981).
For employees, courts carve out different exceptions under the circumstances. What is notably different is that the "bad reason" is cited as acceptable. EE: "The employer may fire an employee for a good reason, a bad reason, a reason based on erroneous facts, or for no reason at all, as long as its action is not for a discriminatory reason." Arteaga v. Brink's, 163 Cal.App.4th 327, 344 (2008).
A different version of the same rule: "as long as an employer does not discharge an employee for engaging in protected activities, he may fire him for any reason, just or not, reasonable or not, or for no cause or reason at all." Nash-Decamp Co. v. Agric. Labor Relations Bd., 146 Cal.App.3d 92, 103 (1983).
______________________________________
For tenants, there is a shorter stated rule. TT: "[A] landlord may normally evict a tenant for any reason or for no reason at all, but he may not evict for an improper reason." Barela v. Super. Ct., 30 Cal.3d 244 (1981).
For employees, courts carve out different exceptions under the circumstances. What is notably different is that the "bad reason" is cited as acceptable. EE: "The employer may fire an employee for a good reason, a bad reason, a reason based on erroneous facts, or for no reason at all, as long as its action is not for a discriminatory reason." Arteaga v. Brink's, 163 Cal.App.4th 327, 344 (2008).
A different version of the same rule: "as long as an employer does not discharge an employee for engaging in protected activities, he may fire him for any reason, just or not, reasonable or not, or for no cause or reason at all." Nash-Decamp Co. v. Agric. Labor Relations Bd., 146 Cal.App.3d 92, 103 (1983).
______________________________________
No comments:
Post a Comment