Plaintiff Julius Janisse was employed as a surgical technician. While employed, Janisse filed several administrative complaints alleging unclean surgical spaces as well as interpersonal conflicts with his co-workers. Janisse was later fired after he “broke scrub” (i.e., left the operating room and returned without re-scrubbing), was reported for that, and then threatened to “kill” the nurse who reported him. He sued his employer alleging whistleblower retaliation claims, among others. A jury found in favor of the defense, concluding Janisse had not engaged in protected good faith reporting activity. Janisse appealed from the judgment and the hospital retained Horvitz & Levy to defend the judgment on appeal.
The Court of Appeal agreed with Horvitz & Levy’s arguments and affirmed the judgment. Janisse raised a broad array of arguments on appeal, including multiple alleged instances of judicial bias and attorney misconduct, several forms of evidentiary error, and instructional error. The court concluded that none of Janisse’s many appellate arguments had merit.
Janisse v. Martin Luther King Healthcare 
