This opinion was handed down in March, but I have not previously discussed it.
In Davis v. Farmers Insurance Exchange, 245 Cal.App.4th 1302 (2016), the plaintiff brought an individual UCL claim as part of his action for wrongful termination. The jury found that the plaintiff's age was a "motivating factor" in his termination, but no damages were awarded because the jury also found that the plaintiff would have been terminated for other, legitimate reasons. After affirming this point (see id. at 1319-25), the Court of Appeal found no basis under the UCL for enjoining the defendant from engaging in future age discrimination. The plaintiff was no longer an employee,"and there is no reasonable likelihood he will be at any time in the future or will otherwise be in a position to be harmed by [the defendant's] actions." Id. at 1327. Moreover, the record contained no evidence of any ongoing discrimination against any current employees. Id.
However, the Court of Appeal reversed the judgment on the plaintiff's individual wage claims (id. at 1330-38), as well as the UCL claim to the extent predicated on the wage violations:
Our conclusion with respect to the wage claim necessarily revives appellant's UCL claim to the extent it is based on failure to pay wages and seeks restitution to recover such wages. (See Cortez v. Perolator Air Flitration Products Co., supra, 23 Cal.4th at pp. 177-178.)
Id. at 1338 (footnote omitted).
Comments