This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.

Jun. 21, 2023

Candice T. Zee  

See more on Candice T. Zee  

Vedder Price

Candice T. Zee  

Candice T. Zee is a member of the labor and employment practice area in the firm’s Los Angeles office, where her practice focuses on traditional labor issues and employment litigation. She handles unfair labor practice charges, union grievances, arbitrations and National Labor Relations Board proceedings on the employer side. She also has extensive experience in conducting workplace investigations involving claims of harassment, discrimination, retaliation and pay inequity.

In a recent matter, Zee represented Hanford Community Hospital in an employment lawsuit where the plaintiff alleged that Adventist Health Hanford (AHH) discriminated against him based on his age, race and alleged disability. Randhawa v. Hanford Community Hospital, F081846 (Cal. App. 5th Dist., filed Sept. 27, 2022).

Plaintiff also alleged claims of whistleblower retaliation, retaliation and wrongful termination. In July 2020, Zee and her team won summary judgment on all causes of action. The court held that AHH had legitimate business reasons for terminating plaintiff’s employment due to his sworn testimony during a workers’ compensation suit that he had taken approximately 30 patient records without the hospital’s or the patients’ consent, which constitutes a HIPAA violation and violation of patient privacy.

“I think this employee didn’t understand that what he did was wrong, so he appealed as well, and we got a really good court of appeal decision,” Zee said. The Court of Appeal affirmed the lower court’s grant of summary judgment in September 2022. “I think that was frustrating for my client because it cost them a lot of money, but it was the right thing because they didn’t actually do anything wrong; they were trying to protect patients and their privacy.”

While the decision to go to court was the right decision for the hospital, Zee added that sometimes resolving a case means negotiating a settlement.

“With the economy these days as hard as it is, making the right financial decision sometimes is also a win,” she said. “Look, it could cost you this much to roll the dice and potentially lose, or here’s a settlement offer — a resolution where you could pay a little bit, but have the security and finality of the case is over, people can focus on their work and move on. So even though a settlement may not be seen as a win, sometimes it is beneficial to our clients.”

Zee is active in the community and has worked pro bono for more than 15 years for the Alliance for Children’s Rights, helping to finalize adoptions for underserved families. In recent years, she has also advised several nonprofit organizations, such as The TransLatin@ Coalition and Westside Food Bank, on employment law matters on a pro bono basis while encouraging other attorneys at her firm to do the same.

— Jennifer Chung Klam

#373387

For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:

Email Jeremy_Ellis@dailyjournal.com for prices.
Direct dial: 213-229-5424

Send a letter to the editor:

Email: letters@dailyjournal.com