In what appears to be a first-of-its-kind decision, a California judge has ruled that Kobe Bryant's former housekeeper can use a law protecting people from “personal insult” to sue the NBA star and his wife for wrongful termination.

The Bryants

The ruling was a preliminary victory for Maria Jimenez in her lawsuit against the Bryants but the case is anything but a slam dunk since California courts have taken quite a narrow view of the “public policy” exception to an employer's right to terminate at-will employees.

Under California Supreme Court precedent, the exception applies only when the policy in question “involve[s] a matter that affects society at large rather than a purely personal or proprietary interest of the plaintiff or employer” and a claim of wrongful discharge in violation of public policy must be based on a statute or constitutional provision.

Orange County Superior Court Judge Kirk H. Nakamura last week dismissed Jimenez's claims for invasion of privacy and infliction of emotional distress. But he also ruled she has a viable claim for wrongful termination based on Civil Code Section 43, which says “every person has ... the right of protection from bodily restraint or harm, from personal insult, from defamation, and from injury to his personal relations.”

The case genuinely involves a matter of public policy, Nakamura said in partially denying the Bryants' demurrer to the complaint, because

Ms. Jimenez's assertion of her rights potentially benefits all domestic workers who are subject to abusive actions by their employers.

Jimenez, 48, alleges Vanessa Bryant subjected her to a “continuing pattern” of verbal abuse and demeaning behavior after she began working for the Bryants at their Newport Beach home in September 2007. “Among other abusive comments, Vanessa called Maria 'lazy,' 'slow,' 'a f---ing liar' and 'f---ing sh-t,'” the complaint says.

The final straw, the suit says, was when “Vanessa demanded that Maria put her hand in a bag of dog feces” to retrieve the price tag for a $690 blouse she had mistakenly put in the washing machine.

After quitting in March 2008, Jimenez sued for wrongful “constructive discharge,” meaning she was forced to resign because of “intolerable working conditions.”

The allegations against Vanessa Bryant certainly fit the term “personal insult” and shielding domestic workers from abusive employers is a worthy goal. But there appears to be no precedent for a wrongful discharge claim based on Section 43 and, in cases where courts have applied the “public policy” exception, the claim has been based on a more specific statute.

In Gantt v. Sentry Insurance, 1 Cal. 4th 1083 (1992), the California Supreme Court said a man fired for supporting a co-worker's sexual harassment claim could sue for wrongful discharge because state discrimination law “specifically enjoins any obstruction of a [harassment] investigation.”

Nakamura rejected Jimenez's claims that she was discharged in violation of a criminal harassment law and a statute which requires employers to provide a safe and healthful work environment. “Dog feces are not specifically listed” as a hazardous substance in the Labor Code, he noted.

He also said Jimenez coud not sue for infliction of emotional distress since the allegedly abusive behavior of Vanessa Bryant “is, unfortunately, part of many types of employment, and is to be expected as a risk inherent in the employment relationship.”

But Nakamura's ruling on the wrongful discharge claim would open employers up to liability under Section 43 for terminating employees whom they have insulted –- which is surely beyond the scope of the “public policy” exception.

The Bryants have countersued Jimenez for breaching a confidentiality agreement by talking to the press about their private affairs. Nakamura allowed that claim to proceed because Jimenez “has not shown [her] statements concerned a public issue or an issue of public interest.”

By Matthew Heller
9/25/09