California Civil Jury Instructions (CACI) (2017)

2710. Solicitation of Employee by Misrepresentation - Essential Factual Elements (Lab. Code, § 970)

Download PDF
2710.Solicitation of Employee by Misrepresentation—Essential
Factual Elements (Lab. Code, § 970)
[Name of plaintiff] claims that [name of defendant] made [a] false
representation[s] about work to persuade [him/her] to change [his/her]
residence. To establish this claim, [name of plaintiff] must prove all of
the following:
1. That [name of defendant] made [a] representation[s] to [name of
plaintiff] about [insert one or more of the following:]
1. [the kind, character, or existence of work;]
1. [the length of time work would last;]
1. [the compensation for work;]
1. [the sanitary or housing conditions relating to work;]
1. [the existence or nonexistence of any pending strike, lockout, or
other labor dispute affecting work;]
2. That [name of defendant]’s representation(s) [was/were] not true;
3. That [name of defendant] knew when the representation[s] [was/
were] made that [it/they] [was/were] not true;
4. That [name of defendant] intended that [name of plaintiff] rely on
the representation[s];
5. That [name of plaintiff] reasonably relied on [name of defendant]’s
representation[s] and changed [his/her] residence for the purpose
of working for [name of defendant];
6. That [name of plaintiff] was harmed; and
7. That [name of plaintiff]’s reliance on [name of defendant]’s
representation(s) was a substantial factor in causing [his/her]
harm.
New September 2003
Directions for Use
If the statutory action under Labor Code section 970 is applicable, do not give the
common-law fraud instruction. For other jury instructions regarding opinions as
statements of fact, misrepresentations to third parties, reliance, and reasonable
reliance, see CACI Nos. 1904 through 1908 in the Fraud or Deceit series.
Sources and Authority
• False Representations in Labor Recruitment. Labor Code section 970.
39
0015
• Violation is Misdemeanor. Labor Code section 971.
• Civil Liability for Violation. Labor Code section 972.
• “[S]ection 970, although applied . . . to other employment situations, was
enacted to protect migrant workers from the abuses heaped upon them by
unscrupulous employers and potential employers, especially involving false
promises made to induce them to move in the first instance.” (Tyco Industries,
Inc. v. Superior Court (1985) 164 Cal.App.3d 148, 155 [211 Cal.Rptr. 540],
internal citation and italics omitted.)
• “To establish . . . a claim [for violation of section 970], [plaintiff] had to prove
that defendants made a knowingly false representation regarding the length of
her employment . . . with the intent to persuade her to move there from
another place to take the position.” (Finch v. Brenda Raceway Corp. (1994) 22
Cal.App.4th 547, 553 [27 Cal.Rptr.2d 531].)
• “[Section 970] requires the employee to demonstrate that his or her employer
made ‘knowingly false representations’ concerning the nature, duration or
conditions of employment. . . . [¶] Moreover, under the statute an employee
must establish that the employer induced him or her to relocate or change
residences.” (Eisenberg v. Alameda Newspapers (1999) 74 Cal.App.4th 1359,
1392 [88 Cal.Rptr.2d 802].)
• “The words ‘to change from one place to another’ import temporary as well as
permanent relocation of residence, as contrasted with a mere change in the site
of employment. The quantitative fact that the change of residence was to be
only for two weeks rather than for a longer period would not appear to affect
the qualitative misrepresentations, nor does it render the statute inapplicable.”
(Collins v. Rocha (1972) 7 Cal.3d 232, 239–240 [102 Cal.Rptr. 1, 497 P.2d
225].)
• “The construction of a statute and whether it is applicable to a factual situation
present solely questions of law. Although the trial court erred in determining
that the Labor Code sections 970 and 972 were not applicable and hence the
issue of double damages was not submitted to the jury, the record reflects that
the jury specifically found that [defendant] made false representations to induce
[plaintiff] to accept the position in California. Given the express findings by the
jury, it is unnecessary to remand this case for a retrial on the limited issue of
damages. . . . We therefore modify the judgment to reflect double damages in
accordance with Labor Code section 972.” (Seubert v. McKesson Corp. (1990)
223 Cal.App.3d 1514, 1522–1523 [273 Cal.Rptr. 296], internal citation omitted,
overruled on other grounds, Dore v. Arnold Worldwide, Inc. (2006) 39 Cal.4th
384, 389 [46 Cal.Rptr.3d 668, 139 P.3d 56].)
Secondary Sources
3 Witkin, Summary of California Law (10th ed. 2005) Agency and Employment,
§450
Chin et al., California Practice Guide: Employment Litigation (The Rutter Group)
CACI No. 2710 LABOR CODE ACTIONS
40
0016
¶¶ 4:351, 5:532, 5:540, 5:892.10, 16:493
1 Wrongful Employment Termination Practice (Cont.Ed.Bar 2d ed.) Other
Employee Rights Statutes, § 4.51
4 Wilcox, California Employment Law, Ch. 63, Causes of Action Related to
Wrongful Termination, § 63.06[1] (Matthew Bender)
21 California Forms of Pleading and Practice, Ch. 250, Employment Law: Wage
and Hour Disputes, §§ 249.30, 249.80 (Matthew Bender)
California Civil Practice: Employment Litigation § 6:27 (Thomson Reuters)
LABOR CODE ACTIONS CACI No. 2710
41
0017