Skip to main content

Pre-Litigation Demands That Amount to Extortion? That's A Problem for Plaintiffs


Stenehjem v. Sareen - California Court of Appeal, Sixth Appellate District


Facts:  Stenehjem filed suit against his former employer and its president and CEO for alleged defamation and wrongful termination, among other claims.  The defendants filed a cross complaint against plaintiff for civil extortion due to plaintiff's pre-litigation demand.  Specifically, plaintiff included in his demand a threat that unless the defendants paid plaintiff's claims, plaintiff  would file a False Claims Act and report defendants to federal authorities for allegedly forcing plaintiff to create false accounting documents.  The lower court granted plaintiff's motion to strike the cross complaint and the cross complaint was subsequently dismissed. 

Holding:  The California Court of Appeal held that the former employee's pre-litigation demand was an unconstitutional extortion and therefore the cross complaint was improperly dismissed.  When the Court of Appeal looked at the pre-litigation demand, it held that the threat to report the employer to federal authorities due to alleged criminal activity was "entirely unrelated to any alleged injury suffered by" the employee.  As a result, the demand constituted extortion and was not protected speech under the California anti-SLAPP statute.   

Judgment:  The Court of Appeal reversed the lower court's granting of plaintiff's motion to strike defendant's cross complaint.  Therefore, defendants could proceed on their cross complaint as to plaintiff's alleged acts which could be held to be extortion.

The Takeaway:  This is a relatively straight forward opinion by the court:  Parties should avoid making any threats to report criminal activity or file an unrelated claim unless settlement demands are met.  It is somewhat common sense, but employers (and employees) should be careful with demands that are made.  Tread carefully!

Majority Opinion Judge:  Judge Marquez

Date:  June 13, 2014

Opinion:  http://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/H038342.PDF


Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

NLRB: Discussion Among Employees About Tip Pooling is Protected Concerted Activity

  This Advice Memorandum from the National Labor Relations Board’s Associate General Counsel, Jayme Sophir, addressed whether employees which discussed and complained about tip pooling at work constituted protected concerted activity. In relevant part, an employer in New York operated a chain of steakhouses.  While tip pooling was in place at these steakhouses, some of the employees objected to it on the grounds that it was not transparent and improperly divided tips among the workers.  Employees were told not to complain or talk to each other about the tip pool and were told that doing so would endanger their jobs.  Despite the employer later attempting to provide some clarity as to how the tips were being divided, rancor still existed among some employees.  At one point, the employees were told by a general manager that some employees that had been talking about the tip pool were “cleared out” and the employer would continue to do so. In the Advice Memorandum, it was noted that emplo
Post a Comment
Read more

What I’ve Been Reading This Week

A few years ago, I remember when the “Fight for $15” movement was taking off around the country.  Lo and behold, it appears that a $15/hour minimum wage is not the stopping point, which should be no surprise.  As the below article notes, New York is aggressively moving to ramp up hourly wage rates even higher.  While all the  below articles are worth a read, I called particular attention to that one. As always, below are a couple article that caught my eye this week. Disney World Workers Reject Latest Contract Offer Late last week, it was announced that workers at Disney World had rejected the most recent contract offer from the company, calling on their employer to do better.  As Brooks Barnes at The New York Times writes, the unions that represent about 32,000 workers at Disney World reported their members resoundingly rejected the 5 year contract offer which would have seen workers receive a 10% raise and retroactive increased back pay.  While Disney’s offer would have increased pa
Post a Comment
Read more

Utah Non-Compete Bill Falters in House

Last month, a non-compete bill sponsored by Representative Brian Greene (Republican from Pleasant Grove) & up for vote in the Utah House failed to make it through the Legislature.  The bill sought to ban enforcement of non-competes if they came after a worker was already employed, given no compensation (such as a bonus or promotion) for signing the non-compete, and laid off within six months.  However, by a 22 - 49 vote, the bill was resoundingly defeated after some business groups lobbied to kill the non-compete bill.  One group in particular, The Free Enterprise Utah coalition, argued that the Utah State Legislature should hold off on any changes to non compete laws in the state until a survey about non competes was done among Utah businesses.  Representative Greene had countered this claim and argued that a survey was not needed to show that the current non compete laws in the states allowed many businesses, including some small high tech companies in the state, to per
Post a Comment
Read more