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.

Employment Law
Retaliation
Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress

Mark Kane v. Matson Navigation Company, Inc., et al.

Published: Mar. 24, 2023 | Result Date: Dec. 12, 2022 | Filing Date: Aug. 8, 2022 |

Case number: 3:22-cv-04583-WHO Bench Decision –  Dismissal

Judge

William H. Orrick III

Court

USDC Northern District of California


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Cory A. Birnberg
(Birnberg & Associates)


Defendant

John S. Keeney
(Littler Mendelson PC)


Facts

Mark Kane, a seaman and member of the Sailors' Union of the Pacific, filed an action against Matson Navigation Company, Inc., and Theodore Bernhard, arising from Kane's termination from his job aboard a ship that Matson owned and Bernhard captained.

Contentions

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS: Plaintiff asserted causes of action for retaliation, breach of employment contract, breach of good faith and fair dealing, intentional interference with economic relations, defamation, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Plaintiff claimed that he completed all of his work as a prudent and competent merchant seaman but Bernhard submitted a letter warning plaintiff that he had violated workplace policy. Plaintiff contended that this letter came in retaliation for his reporting that another sailor harassed and bullied him. Bernhard read the letter to him in front of four shipmates which was demoralizing and discriminatory. Bernhard then confined plaintiff to his quarters, told him not to try to work, and said he would handcuff plaintiff if he left. The next day, without the opportunity to correct any alleged deficiencies, Bernhard issued another letter terminating plaintiff. Bernhard then forcefully discharged plaintiff from the ship in Guam and Matson placed plaintiff on its "do not hire list" for two years.

DEFENDANTS' CONTENTIONS: Defendants denied all contentions. As to plaintiff's retaliation claim, defendants argued that it failed as a matter of law against Bernhard, both because an individual cannot be sued for retaliation under California's Fair Employment Housing Act and because plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies with respect to Bernhard.

Result

Plaintiff's retaliation claim was dismissed with prejudice against Bernhard.


#140433

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

Email jeremy@reprintpros.com for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390