April 14, 2022 – San Bernardino, CA. In March 2022, attorneys Golnar Fozi and Jeremy Dwork secured a unanimous defense jury verdict for their client, the Free Methodist Church in Southern California – a conference of approximately 60 churches and ministries. As relates to the allegations against FMC, the case arose as follows:
From the early 1960s until late 2015, FMC owned and operated a religious camp and retreat, commonly referred to as the Oak Glen Christian Conference Center. As the FMC evolved, the need for the camp waned and, in approximately 2011, FMC decided to put the camp up for sale. Jerome Winn, the camp’s on-site director, was tasked with preparing the property for sale.
Winn’s role included not only facility upgrades but also streamlining camp expenditures. One of the financial changes made at the camp was to eliminate employer-offered health insurance benefits, in exchange for an increase in the wages offered to employees. As of approximately 2011, FMC no longer offered staff health insurance as a benefit of employment.
In 2014, plaintiff Lysanne Ryan and her husband, Richard Anderson, lived in Kalamazoo, Michigan. Unbeknownst to plaintiff, her husband began searching for jobs in California owing to a desire to return to a more pleasant climate and a calling to work for a religious ministry. Ryan investigated potential employment at several religious organizations and camps, and ultimately applied for a position with FMC to work in the Oak Glen camp kitchen.
Winn interviewed Anderson on several occasions in late December 2014, and January 2015. In the course of those interviews, Anderson suggested that plaintiff may also be interested in a position at the camp. After receiving her resume, Winn expanded his interviewing to include plaintiff’s desire for an open staff position.
Over the course of the interviews in January 2015, it was undisputed at trial that Winn informed plaintiff and her husband that the camp was for sale, and that emails were exchanged indicating plaintiff knew there was no guarantee of continued employment in the event of a sale. Winn also testified that he informed both plaintiff and Anderson that health insurance was not offered by the camp, though plaintiff and Anderson dispute this.
In February 2015, Winn formally offered employment to Anderson and plaintiff. The offer was memorialized in writing and included free on-site housing, a utility allowance, and agreed-upon hourly wages. The offer letter also referenced “eligibility” for a benefit package after completion of a 90-day introductory period. No questions were asked by plaintiff or Anderson about the meaning of this phrase, though they testified they assumed it referred to health insurance. Winn testified at trial that the only benefits offered were in the form of vacation time, and other items outlined in the employee handbook – but not health insurance.
Plaintiff and her husband accepted the employment offers and moved from Michigan to California in March 2015. They completed their 90 day introductory periods, after which neither plaintiff nor Anderson received employer-provided health insurance At trial, Winn (and other witnesses) testified that no staff at the camp were provided health insurance as a benefit of employment. Plaintiff and her husband testified, however, that they had reached a “secret” side deal with Winn to the contrary.
When no health insurance was provided, and the camp sold to another entity in December 2015, plaintiff sued FMC under Labor Code section 970 – claiming Winn lured her to move to California based on a false promise of health insurance. Plaintiff claimed that, as a result of a complicated medical condition, her allegations entitled her to more than $4,000,000 in damages from FMC.
After nearly six years of litigation, the matter went to trial on March 8, 2022, in the Superior Court in the County of San Bernardino. The trial was to be conducted in three phases. The first phase was to address whether FMC was liable to plaintiff for alleged promises of health insurance. The second phase was to address plaintiff’s allegations of discrimination, harassment and wrongful termination against the Winn and the subsequent owner of the camp. The third phase was to address the issue of damages, in the event liability was found in either of the first two phases.
After more than two weeks of trial for phase 1 alone, the jury took approximately 1.5 hours to deliver a unanimous defense verdict in favor of FMC. Judgment is expected to be entered against plaintiff, and the court will determine what costs plaintiff will be responsible to pay.
For more information on how the attorneys at Fozi Dwork & Modafferi can help you, your business or organization, please do not hesitate to call (760) 444-0039.