California WCAB Jurisdiction: Oral Contract Was Made in California When Professional Athlete Resided in California

Professional athlete’s contract of hire deemed made in California, this despite actual contract signed out-of-state and out-of-state contingencies performed

In Royster v. NFL Europe, 2014 Cal. Wrk. Comp. P.D. LEXIS – (Appeals Board noteworthy panel decision), the WCAB affirmed the WCJ’s finding that the applicant, a professional football player employed by the Tampa Bay Buccaneers from 4/15/92 to 2/95 and by NFL Europe from 2/97 to 6/11/97, sustained a cumulative industrial injury to multiple body parts during his employment, and that the WCAB had jurisdiction over the applicant’s claim against NFL Europe because the applicant’s contract for hire with that team was made in California.

The WCAB determined that whether a contract was made in California depends upon whether the acceptance of employment took place in California, that the oral contract is made in California if the accepting party resides in California, and that the contract of hire will be deemed to have been made in California even if the actual contract is signed out-of-state or if certain out-of-state contingencies must be performed before the applicant can assume work duties, as these factors are deemed conditions subsequent which do not prevent the formation of the contract.

Here, based on the applicant’s testimony, he was at home in California when he accepted the contract for hire during a phone conversation with the head coach of NFL Europe. Although there were conditions subsequent to his contract for hire (e.g., applicant had to pass a physical examination upon his arrival at the training camp in Georgia and sign the written contract), California jurisdiction was not defeated. Thus, under the circumstances, the WCJ correctly determined that California had jurisdiction over the applicant’s injury.

The WCAB also affirmed the WCJ’s finding that the forum selection clause in the applicant’s NFL Europe employment contract designating Georgia as the state with exclusive jurisdiction neither deprived the WCAB of jurisdiction over the applicant’s claim nor provided a basis for declining to exercise jurisdiction over the claim.

The WCAB found that, notwithstanding the enforcement of the forum selection clauses in McKinley v. Arizona Cardinals (2013) 78 Cal. Comp. Cases 23 (Appeals Board en banc opinion) and Federal Insurance Co. v. W.C.A.B. (Johnson) (2013) 221 Cal. App. 4th 1116, 165 Cal. Rptr. 3d 288, 78 Cal. Comp. Cases 1257, the employment contracts in those cases were not made in California.

The WCAB additionally held that where the contract for hire is made in California, this, in itself, confers California jurisdiction over the case. To decline such jurisdiction contravenes the language in Labor Code § 5000 that “[n]o contract . . . shall exempt the employer from liability for . . . compensation” and Labor Code §§ 3600.5(a) and 5305 stating that, where the contract of hire was made in California, the employee “shall be entitled” to compensation provided by law.

The WCAB further held that the public policy provisions of Labor Code §§ 3600.5(a), 5000 and 5305 precluded the enforcement of the forum selection clause in the applicant’s contract absent a showing, which was not made here, that the clause outweighed public policy reflected in the statutes.

Read the Royster noteworthy panel decision.

Get the edge on recent case law developments

Designed especially for Lexis.com and Lexis Advance subscribers, this monthly reporter saves you research time so that you can quickly find recent panel decisions on key topics.

Purchase here (Format: PDF)