Skip to main content
Your Employee Matters

A Short Note a Private Matter that Became a Protected Activity

By December 4, 2015No Comments


Rose Lee Cardenas v. Fanaian, DDS, Inc.

DentistIn August 2009, Rosa Lee Cardenas began working as a dental hygienist for a local dentist in Reedley, CA. According to the Facts of the Case:

“In celebration of their 25th wedding anniversary in 2010, Cardenas‘s husband bought her a new, expensive wedding ring. Cardenas always wore the ring to work, but placed it in the blouse pocket of her scrubs at the start of each workday. On Monday, October 11, 2010, Cardenas wore her wedding ring to work as she always did, but when she left work that day, the ring was missing. She testified that she took the ring off that morning and placed it on the breakroom table with her cell phone and other belongings. Meanwhile, she put her lunch in the office refrigerator and engaged in small talk with a coworker. A few minutes later, when Cardenas collected her belongings from the table, she noticed her wedding ring was not there, but she assumed she must already have put it in the blouse pocket of her scrubs. When she left the office at the end of that day, she realized she did not have her ring. She called coworkers to ask if they had seen the ring, and she returned to the office on more than one occasion to search for it, but did not find it. She also searched the parking lot, her car and home, to no avail.

“Cardenas had reason to suspect her ring had been stolen at work by a coworker. She testified that when she informed Dr. Fanaian of her decision to file a police report, he did not support her decision and even asked her not to tell the police that she had left the ring on the breakroom table at work. According to Cardenas, Dr. Fanaian ultimately told her, ―[D]o what you feel like you need to do,‖ but he seemed upset or angry.

“Cardenas and her husband, an officer with the Fresno Police Department, reported the theft of the ring to the Reedley Police Department. Cardenas‘s husband initiated the police report on or about October 21, 2010. On October 24, 2010, Cardenas gave a formal statement to the Reedley Police Department regarding what happened, including her reasons for suspecting that the ring was stolen by a coworker in the workplace. In investigating the matter, police officers came to the dental office and questioned office personnel. Dr. Fanaian was upset that the police had come to the office and he told Cardenas that her husband was ―making the situation worse.

“On November 10, 2010, Dr. Fanaian met with Cardenas and told her that the police had recently been to the office a second time. He told Cardenas that the situation was causing great tension and discomfort among the staff, and that he was going to have to let her go. He gave her her last paycheck and allowed her to collect her family photographs and other belongings from her desk.”

She thereafter filed a lawsuit claiming that that termination was in violation of Labor Code Section 1102.5 which forbids employees from retaliating against employees who report violations of law that affect public policy. She also sued for Wrongful Discharge in Violation of Public Policy (based on the Tameny case in California. The jury found in favor of Ms. Cardenas on both causes of actions and awarded her $117,768 in damages.

After the judgment the case went on appeal based on the argument that her reporting a stolen piece of property at work was not a report within the “public interest” affording her the protections under those causes of action. The Court ruled that a Section 1102.5 claim does not require proof of a violation of a fundamental public policy and need not involve violations of law arising out of the employer’s business activities. A very broad interpretation of that statue.

Not surprisingly Ms. Cardenas reported that her ring was found shortly after her termination.

Picture this: an employee, potentially accuses another one of the dishonesty, causes a ruckus, brings in the police, disrupts the entire workforce, and as an owner you can’t do anything about it.

Remember this: the basis of the law is “at will” employment. That is the overriding public policy. The only time that rule sets aside is when on balance public interest is served by protecting an employee from termination. I was involved in the writing of Section 1102.5. I don’t think any of the authors foresaw this potential type of claim coming within the scope of the legislation. If somebody is claiming a health or safety issue related to their health or that of the public and gets terminated for it then you have a classic public policy violation case. However in this situation the “public” being protected is far too nebulous to support this cause of action and simply expands employer liability.