Winslett v. 1811 27th Avenue, LLC (2018)

Citation: Winslett v. 1811 27th Avenue, LLC (2018)
Parent Document: Winslett v. 1811 27th Avenue, LLC (2018)
Jurisdiction: California (state)
Effective Date: 2018-08-15
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/4526968/winslett-v-1811-27th-avenue-llc/ ↗

Full Text

1,329 chars

7
         For its holding, the high court relied on two lines of precedent. First, the court cited
Abstract Investment Co. v. Hutchinson (1962) 204 Cal.App.2d 242, a case that applied equal
protection principles drawn from Shelley v. Kraemer (1948) 334 U.S. 1 in circumstances
where “a tenant contended . . . he was being evicted for racial reasons. Although such a
complaint did not relate directly to the conditions of tenancy, the Court of Appeal held that
a landlord may not permissibly invoke the power of a court to evict a person because of his
color.” (S.P. Growers, supra, 17 Cal.3d at p. 728.)
       Second, the court drew on authority from a wholly different context, but one
presenting similar considerations to those at issue with landlord retaliation against tenants.
Citing the seminal employee termination in violation of public policy case (Petermann v.
International Brotherhood of Teamsters (1959) 174 Cal.App.2d 184 [employer’s otherwise
unfettered right of at-will termination does not permit termination of employee for his
refusal to commit perjury]), the court said that landlord retaliation can cross a similar line.
“[S]uch cases ‘instruct us that one may not exercise normally unrestricted power if his
reasons for its exercise contravene public policy.’ ” (S.P. Growers, supra, 17 Cal.3d at
p. 728.)

Other Sections in This Document (44)

Full Text