Kobe Settles Fired Maid's "Personal Insult" Case Print

Kobe Bryant can now focus on the NBA playoffs. A lawsuit in which a former housekeeper alleged his wife verbally abused her has ended in a settlement that did not require him to pay her anything.

The Bryants

Maria Jimenez'scase raised novel employment law issues. In a first-of-its-kind decision, an Orange County (Calif.) Superior Court judge ruled in September that her claim for wrongful termination against the Bryants fell under a “public policy” exception to an employer's right to terminate at-will employees.

“Ms. Jimenez's assertion of her rights potentially benefits all domestic workers who are subject to abusive actions by their employers,” Judge Kirk H. Nakamura said.

But with the Bryants' motion for summary judgment pending, Jimenez filed court papers earlier this week dismissing her case. The Bryants, in turn, dismissed their countersuit against her for breach of a confidentiality agreement.

"The matter has been resolved as both parties have dismissed their respective complaints against each other," the Bryants' attorneys at Loeb & Loeb in Santa Monica said in a statement. "No money has been paid to Ms. Jimenez by Mr. and Mrs. Bryant."

UPDATE

  • Contradicting the lawyers' statement, TMZ reports that the Bryants paid Jimenez $200,000 to settle her claims.

    		•

    Jimenez alleged that 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 said.

    The final straw, Jimenez said, 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.”

    In California, a claim of wrongful discharge in violation of public policy must be based on a statute or constitutional provision. Jimenez based hers 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.”

    In denying the Bryants' motion to dismiss, Nakamura appeared to 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 judge also refused to dismiss the countersuit, finding that statements Jimenez made about Vanessa Bryant were not protected under a California free-speech law because they did not concern “a public issue or an issue of public interest. The speech concerned Vanessa Bryant, who, unlike her husband, has not been shown to be a public personality.”

     

    This story linked by:

    By Matthew Heller
    4/21/10