Should California’s coast be affordable too?

• July 7, 2023

Over the past five years, there haven’t been a lot of happy stories in California housing, with rents and home prices hitting historic highs, forcing many hundreds of thousands of families to leave the state. But Senate Bill 35 is an exception: since adoption in 2018, the law has helped to permit at least 18,000 new homes—homes that are overwhelmingly priced at rates affordable to moderate- and low-income Californians. 

The idea behind SB 35 was simple: if a jurisdiction is falling behind on housing production, projects that aim to build mixed-income housing and comply with the underlying zoning should enjoy streamlined permitting. The law expires soon, but Senate Bill 423—which is under consideration this legislative session—would extend it for 10 years. A slam dunk for policymakers, right?

Not so fast: As part of SB 423, legislators are working to expand applicability to include urban areas along the coast, which are currently exempt from permit streamlining. Of course, nobody wants to see natural areas of the coast developed, but the coastal zone covers over 225,000 acres of land that are already developed. Subjecting anything and everything built in these areas to additional layers of review simply does not make sense.

This zone includes some of the richest parts of the state, including cities like Coronado and Carmel-by-the-Sea, as well as affluent coastal sections of cities like Santa Barbara and Santa Cruz. By any reasonable metric, these places are well-suited to additional housing: all enjoy easy access to jobs and universities, and as our state’s interior burns, their temperate coastal climates remain resilient. 

And yet, the California Coastal Commission (CCC) has come out in opposition to any streamlined permitting for affordable housing within its domain. The commission insists that the added hurdles they impose are not a barrier to affordable housing while insinuating that the bill would strip the CCC of all of its oversight authority and ignore environmental hazards. But they’re off on all three counts.

First, few can doubt that California makes it uniquely difficult to build housing anywhere near the coast. Even in the best of cases, added hearings and appeals can add months, if not years, to the process—as has recently been the case with mixed-income housing proposals in Santa Cruz and Venice. According to one team of UCLA researchers, this added discretionary review has served to stymie housing production along the coast, raising prices and driving gentrification.  

Related Articles

Second, the bill in no way strips the commission of its oversight power. On the contrary, all that would change is that the commission would be held to the same standards as any other agency in California: permitting would need to be objective, predictable, and fair. Unnecessary public hearings and arbitrary decisions would go, but rules that genuinely protect the coast would remain on the books.

Finally, in areas at risk of sea level rise, SB 423 would virtually never apply. The vast majority of the coastal zone is not at risk, even in an extreme five-foot sea level rise scenario. (The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration only projects a one-foot sea level rise through 2050). And those pockets that are at risk are already largely excluded by SB 423 prohibitions against building on wetlands, floodways, and protected habitats. 

The CCC has a mandate to protect public access to the coast. And in many respects, they’ve done a laudable job. But in opposing streamlining bills like SB 423, the commission is missing the mark. What could possibly do more to improve coastal access than to allow more Californians of all incomes to live by the coast? In what sense is access improved by limiting our coast to a strip of aging mansions and strip malls?

If California is going to get back on a path of housing affordability, every part of the Golden State needs to be building its fair share. That includes the coast. 

Nolan Gray is the research director for California YIMBY and a professional city planner.

​ Orange County Register 

Bob Baffert’s extended punishment is horse racing’s latest unforced error

• July 7, 2023

I love horse racing. Chances are good you also love racing or you might not be reading this column. It’s safe to say that anyone who has a keen interest in the sport hopes the decision makers are spot on with their rulings.

Sad to say, racing’s hierarchy again has shot itself in the foot. One bad decision after another continues to plague a sport that at one time was one of the nation’s top attractions. Now it can’t get out of its own way.

Churchill Downs Inc.’s decision to extend trainer Bob Baffert’s two-year suspension, which originally was scheduled to end Monday, through the end of 2024 is another example of a sport gone wrong. It’s not based on merit, but rather a vendetta against the face of horse racing.

CDI is upset that Baffert won’t beg forgiveness and holds a grudge against the Hall of Fame trainer because he cost the company money in attorney fees by fighting his case in court.

“Vindictive. Personal attack. Three years for a legal medication overage is not justice,” an industry insider told me via text this week.

This insider is a part-time horse owner who has no professional connection to Baffert. His opinion is based solely on the facts as he sees them.

This all started when Medina Spirit, who died from an apparent heart attack following a workout at Santa Anita in late 2021, won the 2021 Kentucky Derby and then tested positive for betamethasone, a legal anti-inflammatory that is not permitted on race day, in a post-race drug test. CDI banned Baffert from all of its race tracks for two years after a second sample of the post-race test also came back positive. Nine months later, the Kentucky Horse Racing Commission stripped Medina Spirit of his victory and made runner-up Mandaloun the official winner.

Baffert initially maintained innocence, claiming Medina Spirit was never treated with betamethasone. He made comments he later said he regretted and then disclosed that the horse had not been injected with the drug but instead had been treated for a skin condition with a topical ointment that contains the corticosteroid.

The case has been hung up in the courts for more than two years, but Baffert paid his dues and everyone thought the ordeal was over this week. Guess again. Remember, this is a sport that is its own worst enemy.

It wasn’t enough that 12 horses died at Churchill Downs during its spring meet, forcing the company to move racing to Ellis Park. Instead of the country focusing on the Kentucky Derby itself, the vast majority of attention was negative because of the breakdowns. Maybe CDI needed a scapegoat in the aftermath. Who better than Baffert, who has more than his share of critics on social media?

CDI, in announcing the continuation of the suspension this week, cited Baffert’s refusal to admit guilt and peddling “a false narrative concerning the failed drug test of Medina Spirit.” But isn’t this America? Isn’t Baffert allowed to defend himself? If Baffert believes he was treated unfairly, he’s entitled to that opinion. As much as CDI wants to control the sport, it can’t regulate how a person feels.

I’m not excusing the fact that 21 picograms of betamethasone were found in Medina Spirit’s bloodstream. It was a Kentucky rule at the time that it was not allowed on race day in any amount and CDI was within its rights to suspend Baffert, but if anyone believes the colt won the Kentucky Derby because of those 21 picograms, I’ve got some oceanfront property in Death Valley I’d like to sell.

And here’s the kicker: If Medina Spirit won the Derby today with the same amount of betamethasone in his blood, it wouldn’t be an issue. The new national rules via the Horseracing Integrity and Safety Authority allow for that level of medication on race day.

I find it interesting that CDI, the same company that let two historic race tracks – Hollywood Park and Arlington Park – fall by the wayside, is worried about the integrity of horse racing. Didn’t CDI also rush to judgment and suspend trainer Saffie Joseph Jr. without proper cause after two of his horses died? Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty? Joseph was reinstated almost two months later when no wrongdoing was uncovered.

CDI, in its original ruling against Baffert in May 2021, said the trainer’s suspension would be evaluated when completed and that he must avoid future drug positives. Baffert has had no infractions since Medina Spirit and CDI, in its latest statement, said it will re-evaluate his status at the conclusion of 2024.

We can hardly wait. After this week’s bombshell, anything’s possible.

Follow Art Wilson on Twitter @Sham73

Related Articles

​ Orange County Register 

Creating a new ‘right’ is the wrong way to fix California’s housing crisis

• July 7, 2023

SACRAMENTO – Several California Assembly members this year introduced a constitutional amendment that declares housing a “fundamental right.” Who knew? Lawmakers have wrestled with innumerable complex issues over the years, but finally someone realized that all they needed to do to magically solve any problem is to pass a new “right” to something.

Expected soon: constitutional amendments declaring “rights” to a million dollars, to a brand-new electric SUV and to a dog that’s properly housebroken. Sorry for the facetiousness, but Assembly Constitutional Amendment 10 epitomizes the lack of seriousness we’ve come to expect from the Legislature. Actually fixing the housing problem is a tough slog.

The legislation, which would need approval by California voters, is modeled on United Nations measures from 1948 and 1966 declaring similar rights. The world’s housing stock has dramatically improved since then, but anyone who thinks that two toothless UN measures were the cause – rather than a booming market economy – really should claim the right to a therapist.

This proposed amendment is remarkably demanding. The Assembly analysis explains that the measure isn’t a right to “shelter,” which it finds inadequate. “The right to adequate housing should not be interpreted narrowly,” it notes. “Rather, it should be seen as the right to live somewhere in security, peace and dignity.” Yet a state that can’t provide basic shelter for 180,000 homeless people shouldn’t be promising inchoate benefits such as dignity.

The legislation also defines the right to housing as “a right to protection from forced evictions, equal and nondiscriminatory access to housing, and that housing must be adequate.” That means housing “with security of tenure; availability of services, materials, facilities and infrastructure” along with a location that offers “cultural adequacy.” Huh?

I have no idea what it means to have housing with “cultural adequacy,” but I do know what it means to have “protection from forced evictions” and with “security of tenure.” That seems to mean that landlords would no longer be able to evict tenants for almost any reason, perhaps even including nonpayment of rent. That creates a practical (not to mention a constitutional) problem.

If a property owner can’t properly vet tenants and potentially can’t evict them, then they aren’t going to invest in or rent out apartments. They certainly aren’t going to make repairs to houses lived in by non-paying tenants, which will make the housing stock less adequate. We need more housing, not less, and such edicts discourage housing investment.

For precedent, ACA 10’s supporters point to the state’s “Human Right to Water” law declaring “that every human being has a right to safe, clean, affordable and accessible water adequate for human consumption, cooking, and sanitary purposes.” Signed by then-Gov. Jerry Brown in 2012, it sounded noble. Who doesn’t want everyone to have potable water?

But in the ensuing years, the state failed to provide clean drinking water to poor, farm-worker towns in the south San Joaquin Valley, even though the fix (hooking up those communities to infrastructure in neighboring water districts) was a tiny expense relative to the state budget. Apparently, the state is willing to grant human rights as it sees fit – but only if they’re cheap and easy. Following that law’s passage, the state continued to neglect its duty to build more water infrastructure.

So spare us these meaningless “rights” bills, which seem designed to result in press conferences rather than meaningful solutions. In fairness, some of ACA 10’s goals are reasonable – e.g., pushing localities to approve more housing construction. But this law wouldn’t accomplish that.

The state already is taking a serious approach toward deregulating land use through laws such as Senate Bills 9 and 10, which create a “by right” approval process for duplexes and mid-rise condos. The state also is battling NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard) cities such as Huntington Beach, which are fighting the laws’ implementation in the court system.

Related Articles

Those laws – and ones that reduce parking minimums and allow developers to build housing on commercial sites – were the result of hard work that involved tough negotiations, coalition building and the usual legislative sausage-making. This “housing right” amendment is an affront to those efforts by pretending that there’s a shortcut.

There’s also much wrong philosophically with creating new “rights” via legislation and voter initiative. Historically, there are two types of rights – “negative” ones and “positive” ones. The former protect individuals from government usurpations. The First Amendment’s speech protections (“Congress shall make no law …”) is the premiere negative-right example.

By contrast, your positive right to housing means the government must force others to give it to you by taking their money (via taxation) or undermining their property rights (by limiting their right to evict you). Not only is that approach ethically wrong, but it will only lead to fewer available rentals. Then again, there’s nothing we can do to rein in lawmakers’ right to introduce worthless legislation.

Steven Greenhut is Western region director for the R Street Institute and a member of the Southern California News Group editorial board. Write to him at sgreenhut@rstreet.org.

​ Orange County Register 

LA County nursing home workers kick off protests over low staffing

• July 7, 2023

Workers from several Los Angeles County nursing homes kicked off the first of a series of protests Thursday, July 6, claiming severe understaffing and high turnover are undermining patient care.

Employees at the facilities — owned by Brius Healthcare and operated by Rockport Healthcare Services — are represented by SEIU Local 2015.

They plan to hold eight pickets over the course of three weeks in July, including Thursday’s protest at Centinela Skilled Nursing & Wellness Centre West in Inglewood. Additional rallies are planned at nursing homes in Los Angeles, Vernon, Claremont, Maywood, Pomona, Norwalk and Montrose.

Brius currently operates 77 nursing homes statewide. SEIU Local 2015 represents about 4,000 workers at 28 of the facilities, including 16 in Los Angeles County. The LA County labor contracts have expired — some last year and others as recently as February.

Representatives with Brius and Rockport could not be reached Thursday.

Carmen Roberts, the union’s executive director, said employees at the nursing homes should be caring for six to seven patients each but are sometimes saddled with 15 or more.

“With that kind of staffing … you can’t even wash their face,” she said.

Danielle Williams, a certified nursing assistant at the Inglewood facility, said she has experienced the staffing shortage firsthand.

“Certain patients are a fall risk, but they’ll try to get up,” the 36-year-old Los Angeles resident said. “If their assigned nurse is with someone else and they’re walking around, there might not be a nurse on the floor who can keep an eye on them.”

Williams said it also takes a toll on employees.

“It wears you out,” she said. “It puts a strain on your back and you’re not able to take the breaks you need.”

Employees say chronic understaffing has worsened during the COVID-19 pandemic, resulting in “alarming turnover rates among underpaid and under-protected care workers.”

That pattern has gone on for years, workers say, fueling a string of government sanctions and exposing Brius to a series of lawsuits, including several actions filed by the California attorney general.

An August 2021 civil lawsuit filed in Shasta County’s Superior Court of California alleges Brius owner Shlomo Rechnitz and several other individuals and entities were responsible for the pandemic-related deaths of some 24 elderly and dependent residents at Windsor Redding Care Center.

The complaint claims several employees at the facility were forced to report to work, despite having symptoms of COVID-19. A large outbreak followed, causing more than 60 patients to contact the virus with about 24 dying, the action said.

Another March 2020 lawsuit claims employee Lidice Diaz was wrongfully terminated as director of business development at Park Avenue Healthcare & Wellness Center in Pomona for refusing to participate in the alleged “patient dumping” of Medi-Cal residents.

The lawsuit claims the company benefited by transferring low-reimbursed Medi-Cal patients out of the facility and replacing them with Medicare beneficiaries who were commercially insured.

The workers are also seeking higher wages and improved benefits.

Certified nursing assistants at the nursing homes average $19 an hour, the union said, while non-nursing personnel earn minimum wage or slightly more.

They’re seeking a 5% cost-of-living raise over the life of their three-year contract, with additional pay increases based on seniority. They also want healthcare coverage that’s more affordable. Only 10% of the union members participate in the current plan because it’s so costly, union officials said.

Employees also say they’re only getting three sick days a year, which creates a risk for workers and their patients.

Related Articles

​ Orange County Register 

Famed surf artist Rick Griffin’s work featured in San Clemente

• July 7, 2023

Rick Griffin’s prolific art career started in the classroom and the Palos Verdes High School student’s surf-inspired doodles selling for 50 cents a pop.

As a kid growing up in Lakewood, Griffin was enthralled with reading, collecting comic books and Disney animation. But in 1958, when his family moved to Palos Verdes, Griffin’s newfound love for surf at age 14 began inspiring his art – decorating schoolmate’s notebook covers and T-shirts.

Griffin would become one of surf culture’s early-era influencers, bringing a playful comic – and later a color-popping psychedelic – style that was showcased in Surfer Magazine as the growing culture boomed.

Now, his work is being showcased at the Surfing Heritage and Culture Center in San Clemente, which is hosting a retrospective of the artist’s life work with a panel on Saturday, July 8, that will discuss his influence in the surf world and beyond.

“He definitely is the most foremost surf artist, ever,” said Barry Haun, curator and creative director for SHACC.

While in the South Bay, Griffin was part of the Haggerty’s Surfing Club, which sponsored surf movies by filmmaker Bud Browne. He was introduced to Greg Noll, a big-wave surfer who also shaped surfboards and had a surf shop in Hermosa Beach. Griffin drew cartoon images on the walls of the shop, according to SHACC.

Related Articles

After a showing of “Surf Fever” at his high school, Griffin met John Severson, the producer of the film who was also the publisher and owner of the newly created Surfer Magazine.

Severson liked Griffin’s cartoon drawings and hired him to illustrate a comic strip in the magazine. The main character was a blond-haired little surfer called “Murphy,” Haun said. Skateboarding was also catching on at the time, and Griffin often added the counter-culture sport into his comic strips.

“He was just so amazingly talented,” Haun said. “There isn’t a surf artist that hasn’t been influenced by Rick. We all emulated his waves when we would draw. I can’t state enough how amazing and what an influence he was.”

Griffin enrolled at the Chouinard Art Institute and his psychedelic posters caught on. He also created the original logo for Rolling Stone magazine, according to SHACC.

He would go on to created rock concert posters for artists such as the Grateful Dead, Jimmy Hendrix, Janice Joplin, Neil Young and Linda Ronstadt.

But his passion for the surf world never faded. In 1969, Griffin produced artwork for the film “Pacific Vibrations,” and in 1972  for the “Five Summer Stories” and in 1983 for “Blazing Boards.”

Griffin moved to San Clemente, where he delved into a newfound passion for Christianity and his artwork often reflected his religious views, according to SHACC.

In the mid-1970s Griffin began working with Calvary Chapel and its music company, Maranatha Music, to do artwork for the up-and-coming alternative Christian rock bands.

In 1976, Griffin had his first and only retrospective show while he was alive, drawing thousands of people who wanted to see his work.

Griffin died in a motorcycle accident in 1991 at age 47.

Six years later, in 1997, he was inducted posthumously into the Huntington Beach Surfing Walk of Fame.

The “Griffin Aquatic Ascendance” exhibit currently on display at SHACC has never-before-seen original artwork, as well as the iconic “Virgin of Malibu,” “Pacific Vibrations” and “Pipeline” paintings.

There’s also a rotation of art that Griffin created for Surfer Magazine, advertisements he made for Noll and seven wall panels he painted while still in high school.

John Van Hamersveld, also a well-known artist who created the iconic “Endless Summer” poster, will talk during Saturday’s panel about the early years when both men were helping to create art elements for Surfer Magazine.

Also speaking about the artist’s life will be wife Ida and daughter Flaven, as well as notable Griffin scholars, including Steve Barilotti, Jim Evans, Gordon McClelland, Dave Tourje and Gary Wong.

The event will take place from 2 to 5 p.m. on Saturday; tickets will be $20 for members and $25 for non-members. More info: shacc.org

​ Orange County Register 

Horse racing notes: Bob Baffert seeks 7th consecutive Los Alamitos Derby win

• July 7, 2023

LOS ALAMITOS LEADERS

(Through Thursday)

JOCKEYS / WINS

Ramon Vazquez / 9

Abel Cedillo / 7

Antonio Fresu / 5

Tiago Pereira / 5

Four tied / 4

TRAINERS / WINS

Peter Miller / 4

Milton Pineda / 4

Jesus Uranga / 4

Four tied / 3

WEEKEND STAKES AT LOS ALAMITOS

Saturday

• $125,000 Los Alamitos Derby, 3-year-olds, 1-1/8 miles

DOWN THE STRETCH

• Trainer Bob Baffert, who has won the Los Alamitos Derby six consecutive years and seven of the past eight, is scheduled to saddle Reincarnate on Saturday when the race, formerly known as the Swaps Stakes when held at Hollywood Park (1974-2013), will be run for the 10th time at Los Alamitos. The 1-1/8-mile event, restricted to 3-year-olds, attracted a field of six. It will be run as the final race on a nine-race card with an approximate post time of 5:05 p.m. Skinner, scratched twice since finishing third in the Santa Anita Derby, is the likely post-time favorite. Trained by John Shirreffs, he’ll be ridden by Mike Smith.

• The California Horse Racing Board reported last week that the state experienced a decline in the number of deaths suffered from injuries during racing and training at California facilities during the 2022-23 fiscal year that ended June 30. Twenty-six horses died last year as a result of musculoskeletal injuries compared to 39 the previous year. “That’s still too many fatalities, but it shows that all of the new regulations, policies and procedures that we’ve introduced in cooperation with the industry have had a significant effect,” CHRB chairman Greg Ferraro said in a statement.

• Rombauer, trained by Southland-based Michael McCarthy when he won the 2021 Preakness and finished third in the Belmont Stakes, is back breezing at Gulfstream Park after a two-year absence and is now in the barn of Saffie Joseph Jr. “He was given time off for an issue he had,” Joseph said. “I train horses for (owner John and Diane Fradkin) and they decided to send him to me.” Joseph said Rombauer, a 5-year-old son of Twirling Candy, could return to the races in August if all goes well. “Hopefully, he stays happy and healthy and comes back to what made him what he was.”

— Art Wilson

Related Articles

​ Orange County Register 

AVP’s Hermosa Beach Pro Open features competition as deep as the sand

• July 7, 2023

The AVP tour returns to Hermosa Beach this week, one of the pro beach volleyball tour’s most popular traditional stops since 1984, and several teams appear capable of emerging on top.

The 16-team Hermosa Beach Pro Open men’s and women’s brackets feature former champions, Olympic medalists and collegiate stars who are sure to be tested during the double-elimination event.

“This event has got to be my favorite. Most of us trained down in Hermosa,” said Hagen Smith, a former UCLA setter who is seeded 10th with partner Logan Webber. “Just the whole event in general is awesome. So this is a really big one for me, and I’m super excited to try and build off of what we did last year.”

Smith, who grew up in Pacific Palisades, and Webber are coming off a win at the Virginia Beach Tour Series event just a few weeks ago.

“Each time we practice, each time we get out there, each time we travel, we’re understanding each other (better) as people and as players,” Smith said. “As that keeps going, as we keep playing together, which I think we will do for a little bit, or hopefully for a while, it is just going to keep getting better and better.”

Smith is the son of volleyball legend Sinjin Smith, who won four consecutive FIVB tour titles (1989-92) with longtime partner Randy Stoklos and has 139 career pro beach wins (129 domestic). Hagen Smith said having his father at his side has been invaluable.

“For a long time, he tried to get me to play tennis and to go into that professionally and I said ‘No, Dad, I want to play volleyball like you,’” Hagen Smith said. “I have him as a resource, where I can go and tap into him and be like, ‘Hey, this is where I’m playing, what advice do you have for me?’ … And so having that wealth of knowledge is super, super helpful.”

This year’s tournament did not include a qualifying round to get into the main draw.

Tri Bourne and Chaim Schalk, who won the Pro Series event in New Orleans in April, are the top-seeded duo this week. Theo Brunner and Trevor Crabb are seeded No. 2, Taylor Crabb and T.S. Sander are seeded No. 3 and Chase Budinger and Miles Evans are seeded fourth.

The 16-team women’s bracket is just as deep, with Kelley Kolinske and partner Hailey Harward seeded No. 1. The duo just won the Denver Tour Series event, and Kolinske has had South Bay success before, winning last year’s prestigious Manhattan Beach Open alongside Sara Hughes.

The fourth-seeded duo of Lili Maestrini and Larissa Maestrini and the 12th-seeded team of Macy Jerger and Megan Rice are the only other teams in the field who have won an AVP event together. Megan Kraft and Emily Stockman are the No. 2 seed, and Deahna Kraft and Zana Muno are seeded third.

Play begins Friday at 9 a.m. at the Hermosa Beach Pier. Friday and Saturday will feature competition from 9 a.m. until approximately 5 p.m. with the men’s and women’s semifinals and championship matches scheduled for Sunday.

All main draw matches can be streamed on ESPN+ and all matches played on Courts 1 and 2 will be available on Bally Sports.

Admission is free, with premium seating available for purchase.

“Beach volleyball is such an integral part of Hermosa Beach, and we feel honored to be back competing in the heart of such a vibrant area that deeply values the sport of beach volleyball,” AVP CEO Al Lau said in a press release.

“We’re looking forward to an exciting week in the South Bay.”

The Men’s field is set for Hermosa Beach! New Orleans winners Chaim Schalk and Tri Bourne are, once again, the top-seeded team! pic.twitter.com/mOiGy0KkEt

— AVP (@avpbeach) July 6, 2023

Fresh off their win at the Denver Open, Kelley Kolinske and Hailey Harward are headlining the Women’s bracket as the number one-seeded team. This team of Pepperdine and USC alums will open the tournament by taking on a pair of crosstown rivals…. pic.twitter.com/x3eMCMlDvw

— AVP (@avpbeach) July 6, 2023

​ Orange County Register 

Employers don’t have to protect workers’ families from COVID, California high court rules

• July 7, 2023

A Bay Area woodworking employee caught COVID on the job and brought it home during the height of the pandemic. His wife contracted the illness and her symptoms were severe – at one point, she needed a respirator to breathe.

But she cannot claim workers’ compensation injuries from the infection, the California Supreme Court ruled Thursday, July 6 in answer to questions from a federal appellate court, because while doing so would be a moral good, that good is outweighed by the potential flood of litigation that would force businesses to close, tie up courts and send commercial insurance rates skyrocketing.

“Recognizing a duty of care to nonemployees in this context would impose an intolerable burden on employers and society in contravention of public policy,” associate justice Carol Corrigan wrote in the ruling. “These and other policy considerations lead us to conclude that employers do not owe a tort-based duty to nonemployees to prevent the spread of COVID-19.”

It was the second major loss for California employees seeking compensation for COVID infections passed to family members. Last year, a longtime employee of See’s Candies lost a workers’ comp claim after she contracted COVID and passed it to her husband, who died.

Workers’ comp is inherently a bargain, Corrigan wrote in a unanimous opinion: Employees get some guarantee that they’ll be paid in the event of an injury suffered on the job, no matter whether they were at fault, and employers get to limit the amount and extent of that compensation.

The question, then, is whether an employer’s duty to protect its employees from injury extends to their families. Today, the court ruled that it doesn’t. But the court left the door open to more lawsuits, ruling that workers’ spouses who contract COVID can still file negligence claims against employers.

The facts of the case are a reflection of the push-and-pull concerning COVID regulations and essential businesses during the first year of the pandemic.

There’s little doubt that Nevada-based Victory Woodworks ignored San Francisco County health ordinances that demanded that employers quarantine potentially infected employees, the court found. Robert Kuciemba was employed at a Victory Woodworks jobsite for about two months when the company transferred a group of potentially infected workers to his San Francisco job site in the summer of 2020. He worked in close proximity to them and was infected.

His wife, Corby, caught COVID from him. She was older than 65, and her condition worsened until she was put on a ventilator. The couple sued, arguing that Victory Woodworks’ negligence led to her illness.

Though the Kuciembas sued in state court, Victory Woodworks had the case moved to federal court, where it was dismissed, a win for the woodworking shop and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which filed briefs in support of its defense.

Victory Woodworks argued that a win for the Kuciembas would have consequences far beyond workplace compensation.

“There is simply no limit to how wide the net will be cast: the wife who claims her husband caught COVID-19 from the supermarket checker, the husband who claims his wife caught it while visiting an elder care home,” the company argued in a federal court brief.

On appeal, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals sent two questions to the California Supreme Court. First, whether the California Workers’ Compensation Act bars an employee’s household member’s claim against an employer, and second, whether the employer’s duty to protect its employees from COVID infections extends to the home.

During oral arguments in May, justices on the state Supreme Court voiced concerns that a workers’ comp ruling in Kuciemba’s favor would open the door to an “avalanche of litigation” against businesses.

​ Orange County Register