PARATRANSIT, INC. v. UNEMPLOYMENT INS. APPEALS BD.

No. S204221.

59 Cal.4th 551 (2014)

173 Cal. Rptr. 3d 739

327 P.3d 840

PARATRANSIT, INC., Plaintiff and Respondent, v. UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE APPEALS BOARD, Defendant and Respondent; CRAIG MEDEIROS, Real Party in Interest and Appellant.

Supreme Court of California.

July 3, 2014.


Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Legal Services of Northern California, Stephen E. Goldberg , Sarah R. Ropelato and Maya Roy for Real Party in Interest and Appellant.

Legal Aid Society-Employment Law Center, Carol Vigne ; National Employment Law Project, Antony Mischel ; Weinberg Roger & Rosenfeld, David Rosenfeld and Antonio Ruiz for Asian Americans Advancing Justice-Asian Law Caucus, Inc., Asian Americans Advancing Justice-Los Angeles, Bet Tzedek, Katharine and George Alexander Community Law Center, Legal Aid Foundation of Los Angeles, Legal Aid Society-Employment Law Center, National Employment Law Project, Neighborhood Legal Services of Los Angeles County, SEIU-United Service Workers West, Women's Employment Rights Clinic at Golden Gate University School of Law and Worksafe, Inc., as Amici Curiae on behalf of Real Party in Interest and Appellant.

Neyhart, Anderson, Flynn & Grosboll, William J. Flynn , Benjamin K. Lunch and Eileen M. Bissen for California Conference Board of the Amalgamated Transit Union, AFL-CIO as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Real Party in Interest and Appellant.

Altshuler Berzon, Stephen P. Berzon and Stacey M. Leyton for United Steelworkers as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Real Party in Interest and Appellant.

Rediger, McHugh & Owensby, Laura C. McHugh , Alec K. Levine , Candice K. Rediger and Jimmie E. Johnson for Plaintiff and Respondent.

No appearance for Defendant and Respondent.


OPINION

BAXTER, J.

In this case, an employee refused his employer's repeated orders to sign a written disciplinary notice, because he disputed the notice's factual allegations and thought he was entitled to consult with his union representative first. There is no dispute over whether the employer was within its rights to fire the employee for his insubordination. The only question is whether that single act of disobedience constituted...

Let's get started

Leagle.com

Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.

  • Updated daily.
  • Uncompromising quality.
  • Complete, Accurate, Current.

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases