CACI 2710 Solicitation of Employee by Misrepresentation—Essential Factual Elements (Lab. Code, § 970)
California Civil Jury Instructions CACI
California Civil Jury Instructions CACI
[Name of plaintiff] claims that [name of defendant] made [a] false representation[s] about work to persuade [him/her/nonbinary pronoun] to change [his/her/nonbinary pronoun] 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:]
[the kind, character, or existence of work;]
[the length of time work would last;]
[the compensation for work;]
[the sanitary or housing conditions relating to work;]
[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/nonbinary pronoun] 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/nonbinary pronoun] harm.
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.
•False Representations in Labor Recruitment. Labor Code section 970.
•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].)