$2.9 Million California Judgment Against Employer Stands in Muddled Green Card Application Case

A California appellate court affirmed a $2.9 million judgment entered against a former movie industry employer who botched the green card application process of one of its foreign employees, resulting in the uprooting of the employee and his family and their forced return to England [Reynaud v. Technicolor Creative Services USA, Inc., 2020 Cal. App. LEXIS 247 (2d App. Dist., Div. 2, Mar. 24, 2020)]. The defendant former employer had contended, in relevant part, that a significant segment of the damages awarded related to the sorts of mental and emotional suffering that were compensable under California’s workers’ compensation laws and that any such claims were barred by exclusivity. The appellate court disagreed, finding that the actions of the employer in mishandling the immigration process did not arise out of and in the course of the former employee’s employment.

Background

In relevant part, Michael Reynaud (“Michael”), a British citizen, moved to Los Angeles in 2005 to attend business school. After obtaining an MBA degree, he took a job with the defendant Technicolor (“Technicolor”) in 2007. Technicolor arranged and sponsored a series of temporary work visas for Michael, allowing him to remain in Los Angeles. Michael began a long-distance relationship with an English woman, Fiona, whom he married in 2015, which enabled her to move to Los Angeles with their daughter based on Michael’s work visa. The couple had another daughter later that year.

Toward the end of 2013, Michael had asked Technicolor to sponsor and assist him in the securing of a green card. The immigration process related to green cards is relatively complex, but Technicolor had assisted other employees in the past and in fact, Technicolor’s outside immigration attorney later testified that 86 percent of all properly-completed red card applications were approved. The attorney could not recall a problem with the “hundreds of PERM applications he filed for the company.”

Unfortunately for Michael and Fiona, the Technicolor employee assisting with Michael’s red card process had never handled such a file. As indicated in the detailed description by the appellate court, various problems occurred, including the failure to file documentation at required times and intervals. In short, Michael’s work visa was set to expire and yet the red card process was far from complete. Michael lost his job because he was work visa expired and he and Fiona were required to move the family back to England.

Michael and Fiona Sue Technicolor

Michael and Fiona sued Technicolor for negligence, alleging that it had breached its assumed duty of care “by failing to initiate the green card process.” They alleged that If not for Technicolor’s breach, the Reynauds would have obtained a green card and would not have been forced to move back to England in the face of deportation proceedings.

The case was tried to a jury in March 2018. In a special verdict, the jury found that Technicolor had been negligent and that its negligence was a substantial factor in causing harm to the Reynauds. In addition, the jury found that Michael had been negligent and that his negligence had also been a substantial factor in causing harm to himself and Fiona. The jury assigned 95 percent responsibility for the Reynauds’ harm to Technicolor and 5 percent to Michael.

The jury awarded Michael $317,114 in past lost wages and benefits; $570,000 in future lost wages and benefits; $1,200,000 for past mental and emotional suffering; and $600,000 for future mental and emotional suffering. Fiona was awarded $300,000 for past mental and emotional suffering; and $200,000 for future mental and emotional suffering. The trial court reduced the jury’s damages awards based on the finding of Michael’s comparative fault and for a partial settlement with a law firm that is not relevant to our discussion. As a result, judgment was entered in the amount of $803,838.30 for economic damages and $2,083,920 for noneconomic damages, for a total award of $2,887,758.30.

Substantial Evidence Supported Verdict; Workers’ Compensation Exclusivity Not Applicable

The appellate court found that substantial evidence supported the verdict. As noted above, however, Technicolor contended that most of the alleged damages alleged to have been suffered by Michael were the sort that would have supported a workers’ compensation claim and accordingly, that the negligence action was barred by the exclusive remedy provisions of the California Act. It also argued that Fiona’s claims were derivative of her husband’s and also barred.

The Court concluded that the Reynolds’ injuries did not arise out of Michael’s employment. Though not cited by either party, the Court found DerKevorkian v. Lionbridge Technologies, Inc. 316 Fed. Appx. 727, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 24566 (10th Cir. 2008, nonpub. opn.) (DerKevorkian), to be both factually analogous and persuasive on the applicability of workers’ compensation exclusivity to the Reynauds’ claims.

The Court noted that in DerKevorkia, also a case involving a botched immigration application, the Tenth Circuit agreed with the employer that DerKevorkian’s depression and anxiety were the type of injuries that could be compensable under workers’ compensation; it disagreed, however, that workers compensation exclusivity applied because DerKevorkian’s injuries did not occur in the course of or arise out of her employment. Rather, the 10th Circuit reasoned that DerKevorkian’s injuries came about because of a completely separate agreement to assist her with her green card application.

Michael’s Injuries Did Not Arise Out of the Employment

For the same reasons, the California Court concluded that workers’ compensation exclusivity was inapplicable in the instant case. The Reynauds’ injuries did not arise out of Michael’s job-related duties or responsibilities as a business analyst at Technicolor. Michael was not performing service growing out of and incidental to his employment, indicated the Court. The sponsorship of Michael’s green card was neither a condition of employment nor a form of compensation. Nor was Technicolor’s negligent handling of the process an inherent risk of Michael’s employment. There was no error below.