Issue
In Ali v. L.A. Focus Publication, 2003 WL 22462610, the California Court of Appeal (Second Appellate District) considered whether an employee may pursue a claim for wrongful termination if he was fired for publicly expressing his political views outside the workplace.
Facts
The Plaintiff, Najee Ali, was the community affairs columnist for L.A. Focus, a monthly newspaper published in Los Angeles. In June 2001, while appearing as a guest on a local radio show, Ali voiced his personal support for then-mayoral candidate Antonio Villaraigosa, and criticized U.S. Rep. Maxine Waters for supporting Los Angeles mayor James Hahn. Less than a week later, L.A. Focus co-owner Jheryl Busby terminated Ali. According to Ali, Busby told him he had “no choice” but to fire Ali in order to appease his longtime friend Waters, who was upset by Ali’s radio comments and had pressured Busby to fire Ali.
Ali sued L.A. Focus for wrongful termination in violation of public policy, among other things. The trial court concluded that Ali had not presented sufficient evidence to support his claim and granted summary judgment against him. Ali appealed.
Court of Appeal’s Decision
Although Ali’s status as an employee or an independent contractor was also at issue, the Court of Appeal concluded that Ali should have been allowed to proceed with his wrongful termination claim. The Court first observed that, in order to prevail on a claim for wrongful termination for violation of public policy, a claimant must identify a policy that is “substantial,” “fundamental,” and “rooted in constitutional or statutory law.” The policy also must benefit the public and not just the individual.
Ali argued, and the Court agreed, that the public policy prohibiting employers from terminating an employee for engaging in political activity is in Labor Code §§ 1101 and 1102. Those provisions make it illegal for employers to control or direct their employees’ political affiliations, prevent employees from participating in politics generally, or threaten employees with termination if they follow or fail to follow “any particular course or line of political action or political activity.” The statutes reinforce a substantial public interest in protecting employees’ “fundamental right” to engage in political activity without an employer’s interference, the Court said, and the protections afforded clearly are for the benefit of the public at large.
The Court recognized that, under some circumstances, a newspaper publisher has the right to insist that its reporters not publish their own views when to do so would contravene the publication’s editorial policies or standards. Such a case was not presented here, however, where Ali’s claim involved termination because, outside of the workplace, he publicly criticized a public official. The Court held Ali’s evidence was sufficient to support his claim that he was fired in violation of §§ 1101 and 1102, entitling him to a trail on the issue.
Legal Alert Email Disclaimer
Legal Alerts are published by Kronick Moskovitz Tiedemann & Girard as a timely reporting service to alert clients and other friends of recent changes in case law, opinions or codes. This alert does not represent the legal opinion of the firm or any member of the firm on the issues described, and the information contained in this publication should not be construed as legal advice. Should further analysis or explanation of the subject matter be required, please contact the attorney with whom you normally consult.