UTU Bus News Digest

UTU Bus Department News Digest
Information of interest to transportation employees May, 2000

Privacy claims by videotaped workers barred by Federal Labor Law

State law privacy and emotional distress claims brought by truck stop workers secretly videotaped by their employer while they were in the restrooms are preempted by the Labor-Management Relations Act, a divided Ninth Circuit holds. "[A]djudication of these civil claims based on privacy rights depends on the reasonableness of the employees' expectations and this, in turn, depends on the extend to which they may have bargained away their privacy interests," Judge Ryder says, affirming dismissal of the invasion of privacy class action led by Lloyd W. Cramer against Consolidated Freightways Inc.

Likewise, the emotional distress claim brought by Guillerno Alfaro, and joined by 281 other plaintiffs, was properly dismissed. Deciding whether the employer's conduct was outrageous enough to sustain the claim requires an interpretation of the collective bargaining agreement, the majority rules. Judge Fisher dissents in part, observing that "Consolidated's clandestine surveillance of its employees...was criminal conduct, in clear violation of California law."

California Court finds employer's right trumps illegal worker's right

An injured restaurant worker who cannot return to work in a modified job because he in not a legal resident is entitled to temporary disability benefits but not vocational rehabilitation benefits, the California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District rules. California's workers' comp law covers illegal workers and requires that employers provide either a modified job or job training benefits to disabled workers who cannot return to their usual occupation. However, the appeals court decides it would be a violation of Del Taco restaurant's equal protection rights to require it to provide up to $16,000 in job training benefits to Jorge Gutierrez instead of providing a modified job, which would have satisfied the obligation to a disabled legal worker.

"[E]ven if the statutory scheme, liberally construed, provides vocational rehabilitation for an 'illegal worker,' the scheme must here yield to the constitutional imperative of equal protection under the laws. We hold that an injured employee is not entitled to vocational rehabilitation benefits where the employee is unable to return to work solely because of immigration status," Justice Yegan writes.