Careful What You Ask For – A Job is “Property” under California’s Extortion Statute

June 3, 2013 by Adrian Barnes

An appeals court has found that a demand for employment constitutes a demand for property within the meaning of California’s extortion statute. The case is People v. Fisher.

Defendant Timothy Fisher applied for a job at a towing company.  Apparently seeking to enhance his application, he informed the manager of the towing company, by hand-delivered letter, that he had previously been arrested for vandalizing a car by sanding off its paint, and threatening that he would return later that day to “determine whether . . . I am employed by your company” and stating “[i]f not . . . I will be armed with a piece of eighty-grit sandpaper that we both know I will not hesitate to use.” Helpfully, Fisher suggested that, rather than offering him a position, the manager could inform Fisher’s parole agent “that I have attempted to extort a job from you.”  The manager chose the latter option and Fisher was arrested and charged with, among other things, extortion.

At trial, Fisher was convicted for delivering a letter with intent to extort.  On appeal, Fisher argued that this conviction should be overturned because “his demand for a job was not a demand for money or property within the meaning of [Penal Code] section 523.”  The appellate court disagreed, holding that “[d]efendant’s threat . . . was a demand for part of the employer’s business, i.e., part of the intangible benefit and prerogative of being able to control whom to employ in one’s business. [citation].”  Accordingly, Fisher’s unusual job application constituted a demand for “property,” and, thus, there was sufficient evidence to support Fisher’s conviction under the extortion statute.

If in need of a representative for employment law related issues, please contact the attorneys at Beeson, Tayer & Bodine. Our goal is to represent the employee and to enforce employee rights.

 

The material on this website is provided by Beeson, Tayer & Bodine for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Readers should consult with their own legal counsel before acting on any of the information presented. Some of the articles are updated periodically, and are marked with the date of the last update. Again, readers should consult with their own legal counsel for the most current information and to obtain professional advice before acting on any of the information presented.