Salas

Plaintiff sued his former employer under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA; Gov. Code, § 12900 et seq.), alleging that defendant employer failed to reasonably accommodate his physical disability and refused to rehire him in retaliation for plaintiff’s having filed a workers’ compensation claim. Thereafter, defendant learned of information suggesting that plaintiff, to gain employment with defendant, had used another man’s Social Security number.

The trial court denied defendant employer’s motion for summary judgment. When defendant sought a writ of mandate in the Court of Appeal, that court issued an alternative writ. In response, the trial court vacated its order denying defendant’s motion for summary judgment, and it entered an order granting the motion. Plaintiff employee appealed from the ensuing judgment, which the Court of Appeal affirmed. It held that plaintiff’s action was barred by the doctrines of after-acquired evidence and unclean hands (based on information defendant acquired during discovery showing wrongdoing by plaintiff), and that here application of those doctrines was not precluded by Senate Bill No. 1818 (2001-2002 Reg. Sess.)…

Concurring and Dissenting. — Though with some reservation, I am willing to assume, without deciding, that the majority correctly analyzes how the state law doctrine of after-acquired evidence should apply, 1 in light of Senate Bill No. 1818 (2001-2002 Reg. Sess.) (Senate Bill No. 1818), when a person claims he or she was denied employment for reasons forbidden by the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA; Gov. Code, § 12900 et seq.), but the employer later discovers that, in violation of both California and federal law, the person submitted a false Social Security card and number as evidence of eligibility to work in the United States.

However, I disagree with the majority’s holding on the separate issue of federal preemption. The majority concludes that federal immigration law preempts an award to an alien employee of “lost wage damages” 2 for wrongful termination under FEHA only with respect to a period after the previously unaware employer later learns that, by virtue of the worker’s federal immigration status, he or she was and is legally ineligible for United States employment. In my view, a state law rule that allows any recovery of posttermination lost wages by…

Filed 6/26/

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA

VICENTE SALAS, )

) Plaintiff and Appellant, ) ) S196568 v. ) ) Ct.App. 3 C064627

SIERRA CHEMICAL CO., )

) San Joaquin County Defendant and Respondent. ) Super. Ct. No. CV033425 ____________________________________)

Plaintiff sued his former employer under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA; Gov. Code, § 12900 et seq.), alleging that defendant employer failed to reasonably accommodate his physical disability and refused to rehire him in retaliation for plaintiff‟s having filed a workers‟ compensation claim. Thereafter, defendant learned of information suggesting that plaintiff, to gain employment with defendant, had used another man‟s Social Security number. The trial court denied defendant employer‟s motion for summary judgment. When defendant sought a writ of mandate in the Court of Appeal, that court issued an alternative writ. In response, the trial court vacated its order denying defendant‟s motion for summary judgment, and it entered an order granting the…