CA court weighs in on ability to address worker’s immigration status

Evidence presented at trial generally comes through a formal “discovery” process, by which a party can obtain documents and written interrogatories that are reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. But sometimes public-policy principles limit that ability.

In a recent case, a California appellate court had to rule on whether the state’s public policy outweighs an employer’s choice to fire an employee for what it claims were fraudulent immigration documents.

Facts

According to his lawsuit, Rigoberto Jose Manuel was employed by BrightView Landscape Services, Inc., as an “irrigation technician” from 2007 to 2018. In January 2018, he injured his back while on the job. He alleged the company initially refused to take him to its medical clinic and then had him sign a waiver for medical treatment.

After several days of back pain, however, Manuel went to an occupational medicine clinic accompanied by another BrightView employee. A physician examined him, determined he had sustained a back injury, and returned him to work with restrictions. After he returned to work and completed a full shift on January 22, 2018, his immediate supervisor told him not to return to work, and BrightView terminated his employment.

Manuel ultimately filed suit for wrongful termination in violation of public policy and failure to permit an employee to inspect or copy records. He sought compensatory damages, “back pay and front pay,” civil penalties, and attorneys’ fees and costs.

Trial court’s decision