Discrimination: If an employer fires an employee based on protected characteristics such as race, color, religion, sex, gender, national origin, disability, age (if over 40), pregnancy, sexual orientation, gender identity, or other protected categories, it may constitute wrongful termination. The California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) and federal laws like Title VII prohibit such discrimination.
Retaliation: Wrongful termination claims can arise when an employee is fired in retaliation for engaging in legally protected activities, such as reporting workplace harassment, discrimination, safety violations, or whistleblowing on illegal activities.
Breach of Contract: When an employment contract exists, whether written or implied, and the employer violates the terms of that contract by terminating the employee without cause or not following the prescribed termination procedures, it may be considered wrongful termination.
Violation of Public Policy: Employees may have grounds for a wrongful termination claim if they can demonstrate that their termination violated a public policy recognized under California law. For example, firing an employee for refusing to engage in illegal activity could be a violation of public policy.
Constructive Discharge: When an employer makes the working conditions intolerable to the extent that an employee is forced to resign, it may be considered a “constructive discharge” and qualify as wrongful termination.
Whistleblower Protection: California has strong whistleblower protection laws. If an employee is fired for reporting illegal or unethical behavior by the employer, this could be considered wrongful termination.
FMLA and CFRA Violations: Wrongful termination claims can arise if an employer violates the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) or the California Family Rights Act (CFRA) by firing an employee for taking legally protected medical or family leave.
Violation of Labor Laws: Employers that terminate employees for exercising their rights under labor laws, such as those related to minimum wage, overtime, or meal and rest breaks, may be subject to wrongful termination claims.
Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing: In California, there is an implied covenant in all employment relationships that requires both parties to act in good faith and deal fairly with each other. A breach of this covenant can lead to a wrongful termination claim.
Fraud or Misrepresentation: If an employer fraudulently induced an employee to accept a job and then terminated them under false pretenses, the employee may have grounds for a wrongful termination claim.

Common Wrongful Terminations of Employment

Discrimination: It’s illegal to terminate based on race, gender, age, religion, disability, or sexual orientation under federal and state laws like the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA).
Retaliation: Employers cannot fire employees for engaging in legally protected activities, such as filing discrimination complaints or participating in investigations.
Breach of Contract: If an employment contract specifies terms of termination, disregarding these terms can lead to wrongful termination claims.
Violation of Public Policy: Termination for reasons deemed against public interest, like firing an employee for refusing to commit an illegal act, is prohibited.

Examples of Wrongful Termination of Employment

Example 1: An employee is fired for filing a sexual harassment complaint. This would likely be considered wrongful termination under retaliation.
Example 2: A company terminates an older employee to hire younger, less expensive staff. This could be a case of age discrimination.
Example 3: An employee with a contract stating that termination requires a cause is fired without any provided reason, breaching the contract.
Example 4 (Discrimination): An employee is terminated shortly after disclosing their pregnancy. If it can be shown that the termination was due to pregnancy, it may constitute wrongful termination based on gender discrimination.
Example 5 (Breach of Implied Contract): An employee has an implied employment contract based on statements in the employee handbook and emails from supervisors stating they can only be terminated for “just cause.” If they are terminated without just cause, it may constitute wrongful termination for breach of implied contract.

Damages Ava

Damages Available for Wrongful Termination of Employment

Compensation for Lost Wages and Benefits: Victims can claim compensation for lost income and benefits.
Reinstatement: Courts may order the reinstatement of the employee.
Punitive Damages: In cases of egregious conduct by the employer, punitive damages may be awarded.
Legal Fees: The prevailing party in a wrongful termination suit may be entitled to recover attorney’s fees.

Call 310-312-1100 Now to schedule a time to discuss your matter with Attorney John Michael Jensen.

Law Wrongful Termination of Employment

a. Definition: Wrongful termination, also known as wrongful dismissal or wrongful discharge, occurs when an employer terminates an employee’s employment in violation of employment contracts, labor laws, or legal protections. It can be a breach of an employment contract or unlawful discrimination.

b. Purpose: Employment laws exist to protect the rights of employees and ensure they are not unfairly dismissed from their jobs. Wrongful termination laws provide a legal recourse for employees who believe their termination was unjust.

2. Problems that Could Arise with Wrongful Termination:

a. At-Will Employment: In jurisdictions with at-will employment, employers can generally terminate employees for any reason, as long as it’s not illegal. Determining whether a termination was wrongful can be complex.

b. Evidence: Proving wrongful termination may require substantial evidence, including documentation of discriminatory actions, witness statements, and a clear connection between the termination and a protected characteristic.

c. Retaliation Claims: Wrongful termination claims can also arise from retaliation for whistleblowing or asserting legal rights. Establishing a causal link between protected activity and termination can be challenging.

4. Legal Principles for Wrongful Termination:

a. At-Will Employment Exceptions: Even in at-will employment jurisdictions, there are exceptions where termination is prohibited, such as discrimination, retaliation, or violations of public policy.

b. Anti-Discrimination Laws: Federal and state anti-discrimination laws prohibit termination based on protected characteristics such as race, gender, religion, disability, or age.

c. Whistleblower Protection: Many laws protect employees who report unlawful activities or safety concerns (whistleblowers) from retaliation, including termination.

d. Breach of Contract: Wrongful termination claims can be based on a breach of an employment contract, either written or implied.

5. Prevention and Protection:

a. Employment Contracts: Clear employment contracts with specific termination clauses can protect both employees and employers from wrongful termination disputes.

b. Documentation: Employers and employees should maintain thorough records of employment-related interactions, including performance evaluations, disciplinary actions, and termination decisions.

c. Know Your Rights: Employees should be aware of their rights under employment laws and seek legal counsel if they believe they have been wrongfully terminated.

6. Summary

In summary, wrongful termination in employment law refers to the unlawful dismissal of an employee, often due to discrimination, retaliation, or breach of contract. Problems can arise due to at-will employment laws, the need for evidence, and retaliation claims. Legal principles include at-will employment exceptions, anti-discrimination laws, whistleblower protection, and breach of contract. Prevention and protection involve clear employment contracts, documentation, and understanding one’s rights.

Call 310-312-1100 Now to schedule a time to discuss your matter with Attorney John Michael Jensen.

Additional Information About Wrongful Termination of Employment

In California, wrongful termination is a significant aspect of employment law, addressing situations where an employee is fired in violation of legal provisions, contracts, or public policy. Here’s an extensive overview:

1. Legal Framework

At-Will Employment: California follows the at-will employment doctrine, allowing employers to terminate employees at any time for any reason, barring illegal grounds.
Exceptions: Exceptions to at-will employment include terminations violating federal and state anti-discrimination laws, breaches of employment contracts, and terminations against public policy.

2. Illegal Grounds for Termination

Discrimination: It’s illegal to terminate based on race, gender, age, religion, disability, or sexual orientation under federal and state laws like the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA).
Retaliation: Employers cannot fire employees for engaging in legally protected activities, such as filing discrimination complaints or participating in investigations.
Breach of Contract: If an employment contract specifies terms of termination, disregarding these terms can lead to wrongful termination claims.
Violation of Public Policy: Termination for reasons deemed against public interest, like firing an employee for refusing to commit an illegal act, is prohibited.

3. Legal Consequences

Compensation for Lost Wages and Benefits: Victims can claim compensation for lost income and benefits.
Reinstatement: Courts may order the reinstatement of the employee.
Punitive Damages: In cases of egregious conduct by the employer, punitive damages may be awarded.
Legal Fees: The prevailing party in a wrongful termination suit may be entitled to recover attorney’s fees.

4. Common Problems and Challenges

Proving Wrongful Termination: Employees must prove that their termination was illegal, which can be challenging, especially in at-will employment situations.
Statute of Limitations: There are strict time limits for filing wrongful termination claims, which can be a hurdle for unaware employees.
Misclassification: Workers misclassified as independent contractors may face difficulties in claiming wrongful termination.

5. Examples

Example 1: An employee is fired for filing a sexual harassment complaint. This would likely be considered wrongful termination under retaliation.
Example 2: A company terminates an older employee to hire younger, less expensive staff. This could be a case of age discrimination.
Example 3: An employee with a contract stating that termination requires a cause is fired without any provided reason, breaching the contract.

6. Preventive Measures for Employers

Clear Policies and Documentation: Implementing clear employment policies and maintaining documentation can help prevent wrongful termination claims.
Training: Regular training on anti-discrimination laws and ethical employment practices is crucial.
Legal Consultation: Consulting with legal experts before terminating an employee can reduce the risk of wrongful termination suits.

7. Resolution

Mediation and Arbitration: Many disputes are resolved through mediation or arbitration before reaching court.
Litigation: Some cases proceed to litigation, where the matter is decided by a court.

Conclusion

In conclusion, wrongful termination in California is a complex issue, with various legal implications and challenges. Both employees and employers must be aware of the legal framework, potential problems, and preventive measures to navigate this aspect of employment law effectively.

Breach of Employment Agreement Wrongful Termination of Employment

Breach of Employment Contract- Specified Term Essential Factual Allegations in Wrongful Termination

A breach of an employment contract with a specified term in the context of wrongful termination in the state of California involves violations of the terms and conditions set forth in an employment agreement. When an employer terminates an employee in violation of these terms, it can lead to legal consequences. Below, I’ll provide an extensive overview of this legal concept, along with potential problems, examples, and detailed explanations.

1. Employment Contracts in California:

In California, employment contracts can be either at-will or have specified terms. An employment contract with a specified term means that the employment relationship is agreed to last for a specific duration or until a specified event occurs. Breach of such a contract occurs when either the employer or the employee fails to adhere to the terms.

2. Breach of Employment Contract Claims:

A breach of employment contract claim arises when an employer terminates an employee before the end of the specified term without legal justification. Key elements of such a claim include:

a. Contractual Obligations: The existence of a valid and enforceable employment contract with specific terms and conditions.

b. Unjustified Termination: The employer’s termination of the employee before the specified term without valid cause or justification.

c. Damages: The employee must demonstrate the damages suffered as a result of the breach, such as lost wages and benefits for the remaining contract period.

3. Legal Consequences of Breach of Employment Contract:

If an employer is found to have wrongfully terminated an employee with a specified term contract, potential legal consequences may include:

a. Compensatory Damages: The employee may be entitled to compensation for the wages and benefits they would have received for the remainder of the contract term.

b. Specific Performance: In some cases, the court may order the employer to fulfill the terms of the contract, such as reinstating the employee for the remaining contract period.

c. Attorney’s Fees: The prevailing party (often the employee) may recover attorney’s fees and legal costs.

4. Problems that Could Arise:

Several issues and complexities can arise in breach of employment contract cases:

a. Contract Interpretation: Disputes can occur over the interpretation of contract terms, including what constitutes a breach and whether certain actions or justifications are valid under the contract.

b. Termination Justification: Employers may argue that the termination was justified due to the employee’s misconduct or performance issues, which can complicate the determination of whether the termination was wrongful.

c. Mitigation of Damages:

Employees have a duty to mitigate their damages by seeking new employment. Employers may argue that the employee failed to make reasonable efforts to find new work, which can impact the damages awarded.

d. Enforceability of Non-compete Clauses: Some employment contracts may contain non-compete clauses that limit an employee’s ability to work for competitors or start their own business after termination. The enforceability of such clauses can be a subject of dispute.

5. Examples:

To illustrate the concept of breach of employment contract in California, consider the following examples:

a. Contractual Obligation: An employee signs a one-year contract to work as a software developer for a specific company. The employer terminates the employee after six months without valid cause. This could be a breach of the employment contract.

b. Termination Justification: A contract states that an employee can be terminated for “cause,” which is defined in the contract. If the employer terminates the employee without meeting the contract’s definition of “cause,” it may constitute a breach.

c. Mitigation of Damages: An employee with a one-year contract is terminated without cause. Instead of actively seeking new employment, the employee remains unemployed for the remainder of the contract period. This could affect the damages awarded.

Conclusion

In summary, a breach of an employment contract with a specified term in California can result in legal consequences for employers who terminate employees without proper justification. To address such cases, it is essential for both parties to understand their contractual obligations, seek legal advice if necessary, and consider the potential consequences of breach of contract claims in the state’s employment law context.

Call 310-312-1100 Now to schedule a time to discuss your matter with Attorney John Michael Jensen.

CACI 2420 Wrongful Termination of Employment

2420. Breach of Employment Contract—Specified Term—Essential Factual Elements

[Name of plaintiff] claims that [name of defendant] breached an employment contract for a specified term. To establish this claim, [name of plaintiff] must prove all of the following:

That [name of plaintiff] and [name of defendant] entered into an employment contract that specified a length of time that [name of plaintiff] would remain employed;
That [name of plaintiff] substantially performed [his/her/nonbinary pronoun] job duties [unless [name of plaintiff]’s performance was excused [or prevented]];
That [name of defendant] breached the employment contract by [discharging/demoting] [name of plaintiff] before the end of the term of the contract; and
That [name of plaintiff] was harmed by the [discharge/demotion].

New September 2003

Directions for Use

The element of substantial performance should not be confused with the “good cause” defense: “The action is primarily for breach of contract. It was therefore incumbent upon plaintiff to prove that he was able and offered to fulfill all obligations imposed upon him by the contract. Plaintiff failed to meet this requirement; by voluntarily withdrawing from the contract he excused further performance by defendant.” (Kane v. Sklar (1954) 122 Cal.App.2d 480, 482 [265 P.2d 29], internal citation omitted.) Element 2 may be deleted if substantial performance is not an issue.

See also CACI No. 304, Oral or Written Contract Terms, and CACI No. 305,

Implied-in-Fact Contract.

Sources and Authority

At-Will Employment. Labor Code section 2922.
Termination of Employment for Specified Term. Labor Code section 2924.
Contractual Conditions Precedent. Civil Code section 1439.
“[L]abor Code section 2924 has traditionally been interpreted to ‘inhibit[] the termination of employment for a specified term except in case of a wilful breach of duty, of habitual neglect of, or continued incapacity to perform, a duty.’ ” (Khajavi v. Feather River Anesthesia Medical Group (2000) 84 Cal.App.4th 32, 57 [100 Cal.Rptr.2d 627], internal citations omitted.)

CACI No. 2420 WRONGFUL TERMINATION

“Stated simply, the contract compensation for the unexpired period of the contract affords a prima facie measure of damages; the actual measured damage, however, is the contract amount reduced by compensation received during the unexpired term; if, however, such other compensation has not been received, the contract amount may still be reduced or eliminated by a showing that the employee, by the exercise of reasonable diligence and effort, could have procured comparable employment and thus mitigated the damages.” (Erler v. Five Points Motors, Inc. (1967) 249 Cal.App.2d 560, 562 [57 Cal.Rptr. 516].)

Secondary Sources

Chin et al., California Practice Guide: Employment Litigation, Ch. 4-A, Employment Presumed at Will, ¶¶ 4:2, 4:47 (The Rutter Group)

1 Wrongful Employment Termination Practice (Cont.Ed.Bar 2d ed.) Contract Actions, §§ 8.2–8.20 21 California Forms of Pleading and Practice, Ch. 249, Employment Law: Termination and Discipline, § 249.21 (Matthew Bender)

Employer Defenses Wrongful Termination of Employment

Defenses to Breaches of Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing

1. Legal Context of the Implied Covenant

Nature of the Covenant: In California, every employment contract implicitly contains a covenant of good faith and fair dealing. This covenant mandates fair treatment in the execution of contractual obligations and rights.
Relevance in Wrongful Termination: In wrongful termination cases, this covenant is often cited when an employee alleges that their dismissal was carried out in bad faith or unfairly deprived them of contract benefits.

2. Common Defenses Against Alleged Breaches

At-Will Employment Doctrine: The primary defense is the assertion of California’s at-will employment principle, which allows employers to terminate employment for any legal reason, without being inherently in bad faith.
Legitimate Business Reasons: Demonstrating that the termination or employment decision was based on legitimate business reasons (e.g., downsizing, poor performance) and not an intention to deprive the employee of benefits.
Lack of Malice or Fraud: Arguing that there was no malicious intent or fraud involved in the decision-making process.
Consistency in Policy Application: Showing that the employer’s actions were consistent with company policies and applied uniformly to all employees.

3. Examples and Case Studies

Example 1: A company enforces a layoff due to economic downturn. If the layoffs are evenly applied and not used to specifically target certain employees unfairly, this can be a defense against a breach claim.
Example 2: An employee is terminated for poor performance, backed by documented performance reviews. This documentation can be used to show that the termination was not in bad faith but a legitimate business decision.

4. Legal Consequences and Implications

Avoidance of Liability: Successful defenses can lead to the dismissal of wrongful termination claims, saving the employer from significant liabilities.
Setting Precedents: Strong defenses can set precedents for future cases, influencing how courts interpret the covenant in employment disputes.

5. Problems and Challenges

Proving Legitimate Business Reasons: The burden to prove that a termination was due to legitimate business reasons can be challenging, especially if documentation and consistent policies are lacking.
Balancing Interests: There’s a fine balance between an employer’s right to make business decisions and the employee’s right to fair treatment.
Varying Interpretations: Courts may interpret the covenant and defenses differently, leading to inconsistent outcomes.

6. Conclusion

Defenses against breaches of the Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing in wrongful termination cases in California hinge on demonstrating legitimate, non-malicious reasons for employment decisions. The at-will employment doctrine plays a significant role, but it must be carefully balanced against the covenant’s requirements. Employers must navigate this complex legal landscape with thorough documentation and consistent policy application to successfully defend against such claims. The subjective nature of these cases and the variability in court interpretations present ongoing challenges in employment law.

Call 310-312-1100 Now to schedule a time to discuss your matter with Attorney John Michael Jensen.

________________________

Additional Information

Employer Defenses to Breach of Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing Wrongful Termination of Employment

Defenses to Breaches of Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing in Wrongful Termination Cases in California:

Introduction:

The implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing is a fundamental concept in California employment law. It is an inherent part of every employment contract, whether written or oral, and imposes an obligation on both employers and employees to act in good faith and deal fairly with each other. In the context of wrongful termination, the breach of this covenant can give rise to legal consequences for employers. However, there are certain defenses that employers may raise to mitigate or defend against such claims.

Overview of the Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing: The implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing implies that employers and employees must not act in a manner that undermines the other party’s rights or benefits under the employment contract. In the context of wrongful termination, it means that employers cannot terminate an employee for arbitrary, capricious, or bad faith reasons, even if the employment contract is at-will.
Wrongful Termination Claims in California: To bring a wrongful termination claim in California, an employee must typically demonstrate one of the following:a. Violation of public policy. b. Breach of an implied employment contract. c. Breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.
Common Defenses to Breach of Implied Covenant Claims: Employers facing claims of breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing in wrongful termination cases can employ various defenses to protect their interests:a. At-will Employment Doctrine: One of the primary defenses is the assertion that the employment relationship was at-will, meaning the employer had the right to terminate the employee at any time and for any reason, as long as it was not unlawful.Example: An employer argues that the employee was an at-will employee and, therefore, the termination was lawful and did not breach the implied covenant.b. Legitimate Business Reasons: Employers may argue that the termination was based on legitimate, non-discriminatory business reasons, such as poor performance, violations of company policies, or economic necessity.Example: An employer can provide evidence of an employee’s consistent poor performance as the reason for termination.c. Absence of Bad Faith: Employers may claim that they acted in good faith and without malice when making the termination decision, demonstrating that the decision was not made with an intent to harm the employee.Example: An employer can present documentation of a fair and thorough performance evaluation process leading to the termination decision.
Potential Problems and Challenges for Employers: Despite these defenses, there are potential problems and challenges employers may face when defending against a breach of implied covenant claim:a. Establishing Good Faith: Proving that the termination was in good faith can be challenging, as it often relies on subjective interpretations of the employer’s intent.b. Inconsistent Treatment: If an employer has not consistently enforced its policies or has treated other employees differently in similar situations, it may weaken their defense.c. Mixed Motive: If there is evidence of both legitimate business reasons and discriminatory intent, the defense becomes more complex.d. Public Policy Violation: If the termination violates a fundamental public policy, the at-will defense may not apply.

Conclusion:

In California, the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing plays a crucial role in wrongful termination cases. While employers can raise defenses such as at-will employment and legitimate business reasons, the key is to demonstrate that the termination was not arbitrary or in bad faith. Employers should always seek legal counsel when facing such claims to navigate the complex legal landscape effectively.

_________________________

Call 310-312-1100 Now to schedule a time to discuss your matter with Attorney John Michael Jensen.

2424. Affirmative Defense—Breach of the Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing—Good Faith Though Mistaken Belief

[Name of defendant] claims that [he/she/nonbinary pronoun/it] did not breach the duty to act fairly and in good faith because [he/she/nonbinary pronoun/it] believed that there was a legitimate and reasonable business purpose for the conduct.

To succeed, [name of defendant] must prove both of the following:

That

conduct was based on an honest belief that [insert alleged mistake]; and

That, if true, [insert alleged mistake] would have been a legitimate and reasonable business purpose for the conduct.

New September 2003; Revised November 2019, May 2020

Directions for Use

In every contract, there is an implied promise that each party will not do anything to unfairly interfere with the right of any other party to receive the benefits of the contract. (Comunale v. Traders & General Ins. Co. (1958) 50 Cal.2d 654, 658 [328 P.2d 198].) Give CACI No. 2423, Breach of Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing—Employment Contract—Essential Factual Elements, if the employee asserts a claim that the employee’s termination or other adverse employment action was in breach of this implied covenant. Give this instruction if the employer asserts the defense that an honest, though mistaken, belief does not constitute a breach.

Sources and Authority

“[B]ecause the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing requires the employer to act fairly and in good faith, an employer’s honest though mistaken belief that legitimate business reasons provided good cause for discharge, will negate a claim it sought in bad faith to deprive the employee of the benefits of the contract.” (Wilkerson v. Wells Fargo Bank (1989) 212 Cal.App.3d 1217, 1231 [261 Cal.Rptr. 185], internal citation omitted, disapproved on other grounds in Cotran v. Rollins Hudig Hall International, Inc. (1998) 17 Cal.4th 93, 96 [69

Cal.Rptr.2d 900, 948 P.2d 412].)

“The jury was instructed that the neglect or refusal to fulfill a contractual obligation based on an honest, mistaken belief did not constitute a breach of the implied covenant.” (Luck v. Southern Pacific Transportation Co. (1990) 218 Cal.App.3d 1, 26 [267 Cal.Rptr. 618].)
“[F]oley does not preclude inquiry into an employer’s motive for discharging an employee ” (Seubert v. McKesson Corp. (1990) 223 Cal.App.3d 1514, 1521

[273 Cal.Rptr. 296], overruled on other grounds, Dore v. Arnold Worldwide, Inc.

CACI No. 2424 WRONGFUL TERMINATION

(2006) 39 Cal.4th 384, 389 [46 Cal.Rptr.3d 668, 139 P.3d 56].)

“[T]he jury was asked to determine in its special verdict whether appellants had a legitimate reason to terminate [plaintiff]’s employment and whether appellants acted in good faith on an honest but mistaken belief that they had a legitimate business reason to terminate [plaintiff]’s employment.” (Seubert, supra, 223 Cal.App.3d at p. 1521 [upholding jury instruction].)

Secondary Sources

Chin et al., California Practice Guide: Employment Litigation, Ch. 4-A, Employment Presumed At Will, ¶ 4:5 (The Rutter Group)

Chin et al., California Practice Guide: Employment Litigation, Ch.4-C, “Good Cause” for Termination, ¶ 4:271 (The Rutter Group)

10 California Points and Authorities, Ch. 100, Employer and Employee: Wrongful Termination and Discipline, § 100.30 (Matthew Bender)

Damages for Breach of Employment Contract Wrongful Termination of Employment

Damages- Breach of Employment Contract -Specified Term

Legal Framework for Employment Contracts

Damages- Breach of Employment Contract -Specified Term

Legal Framework for Employment Contracts

Specified Term Employment Contracts: These contracts delineate a specific duration for employment, contrary to the at-will doctrine. Breach occurs when either party terminates the contract without adhering to the terms agreed upon.
Enforceability: Such contracts must meet legal standards for enforceability, including clarity in terms, mutual consent, and consideration.
Breach of Contract: A breach occurs when an employer unlawfully terminates an employee before the end of the contract term without a legitimate reason or without following the contract’s termination provisions.

Legal Consequences of Breach

Damages: The primary legal consequence for wrongful termination of a specified term contract is the award of damages to the employee. This usually includes:
- Lost Wages and Benefits: Covering the remaining period of the contract.
- Consequential Damages: Additional losses incurred by the employee as a result of the breach.
- Emotional Distress: In some cases, if the breach caused significant emotional harm.
Specific Performance: Rarely, a court may order specific performance, requiring the employer to continue employing the individual until the contract’s end. However, this is less common in employment law due to the personal nature of employment relationships.
Legal Fees and Costs: The prevailing party may also be entitled to recover legal fees and costs, depending on the contract’s terms.

Potential Problems and Challenges

Proving Damages: Quantifying lost wages and benefits can be straightforward, but calculating consequential damages and emotional distress is more complex.
Mitigation of Damages: The employee has a duty to mitigate damages, meaning they must make reasonable efforts to find comparable employment. This can affect the total damages awarded.
Ambiguities in Contract Terms: Vague or poorly drafted contracts can lead to disputes over whether a breach occurred.
Constructive Dismissal: Cases where an employee resigns due to intolerable working conditions (constructive dismissal) can complicate breach claims.

Examples and Reasoning

Early Termination Without Cause: An employee with a two-year contract is terminated after one year without cause. Damages could include the salary and benefits for the remaining year, provided the employee makes reasonable efforts to find new employment.
Breach Due to Company Closure: If a company closes unexpectedly, terminating all contracts, employees may claim breach. However, the company’s financial inability to pay might limit the actual damages recoverable.
Ambiguous Termination Clauses: A contract with a vague termination clause leads to a dispute. If the employer interprets the clause as allowing termination for performance issues, but the employee disagrees, a court would need to interpret the clause’s meaning.
Constructive Dismissal: An employee with a specified term contract resigns due to a hostile work environment. The employee claims breach of contract, arguing that the employer’s actions constituted a de facto termination.

Conclusion

In California, wrongful termination of a specified term employment contract can lead to significant legal consequences, primarily in the form of damages. The challenges in these cases often revolve around proving the extent of damages and interpreting contract terms. Both employers and employees must understand their rights and obligations under such contracts to avoid legal pitfalls and ensure fair and lawful employment practices. Legal advice is often necessary in these complex situations

________________________

Call 310-312-1100 Now to schedule a time to discuss your matter with Attorney John Michael Jensen.

Additional Information

Overview of Employmetnt Contract in California Wrongful Termination of Employment

Overview of Employment Contracts in California: In California, employment relationships can be categorized as either at-will or contractual. An at-will employment relationship can be terminated by either the employer or employee at any time, for any reason, with some exceptions. A contractual employment relationship, on the other hand, is governed by an employment contract that specifies the terms and conditions of employment, including the duration of employment.

Breach of Employment Contract with Specified Term: When an employer breaches an employment contract with a specified term, it generally means they have terminated the employee before the contract’s end date without legal justification. In such cases, the employee may have legal recourse against the employer for wrongful termination, and damages may be awarded.

Legal Consequences for the Employer:

Breach of Contract Claims: The employee may file a breach of contract claim against the employer for violating the terms of the employment agreement.
Damages: If the court finds in favor of the employee, the employer may be liable for various types of damages, including:
- Compensatory Damages: These are designed to compensate the employee for losses suffered as a result of the breach. This may include lost wages, benefits, and any other financial losses directly related to the termination.
- Consequential Damages: These are damages that result indirectly from the breach and may include costs related to finding a new job, relocation expenses, and additional financial hardships.
- Punitive Damages: In some cases, punitive damages may be awarded if the employer’s conduct was particularly egregious or intentional.
Specific Performance: In rare cases, a court may order specific performance, requiring the employer to fulfill the terms of the contract and reinstate the employee.
Attorney’s Fees and Costs: Depending on the language of the contract, the prevailing party (usually the employee) may be entitled to recover attorney’s fees and litigation costs.

Problems and Challenges:

Proving Breach: The employee must demonstrate that the employer breached the employment contract. This can be challenging, especially if the contract terms are ambiguous or subject to interpretation.
Mitigation of Damages: The employee has a duty to mitigate their damages by actively seeking new employment. Failure to do so may limit the damages recoverable.
Causation: The employee must establish a causal connection between the breach of contract and the damages suffered. This can be complex in cases involving other factors affecting employment.
Employer Defenses: Employers may assert various defenses, such as a legitimate business reason for termination or that the employee breached the contract first.

Example:

Suppose an employee, Sarah, has a one-year employment contract with her employer, XYZ Corp. The contract explicitly states that she can only be terminated for cause. XYZ Corp terminates Sarah after six months without cause. Sarah files a wrongful termination lawsuit.

If the court finds that XYZ Corp breached the contract, Sarah may be entitled to compensatory damages, including the wages and benefits she would have received for the remaining six months.
XYZ Corp may argue that Sarah’s performance was subpar, constituting cause for termination, while Sarah may present evidence to the contrary.
The court will consider the contract terms, evidence of performance, and any mitigating efforts by Sarah to find a new job.

Conclusion

In conclusion, breach of an employment contract with a specified term in California can have serious legal consequences for employers, including potential damages awarded to the wrongfully terminated employee. However, these cases can be legally complex, requiring a thorough examination of the contract, the circumstances of termination, and potential defenses. It is advisable for both employers and employees to seek legal counsel when facing such situations to ensure their rights and obligations are properly addressed under California law.

_____________________________

Call 310-312-1100 Now to schedule a time to discuss your matter with Attorney John Michael Jensen.

Jury Instruction on Breach and Damages Wrongful Termination of Employment

2422. Breach of Employment Contract—Specified Term—Damages

If you find that [name of defendant] [discharged/demoted] [name of plaintiff] in breach of an employment contract for a specified term, then you must decide the damages, if any, that [name of plaintiff] has proved [he/she/nonbinary pronoun] is entitled to recover. To make that decision, you must:

Decide the amount that [name of plaintiff] would have earned up to today, including any benefits and pay increases; [and]
Add the present cash value of any future wages and benefits that [he/she/nonbinary pronoun] would have earned up to the end of the term of the contract; [and]
[Describe any other contract damages that were allegedly caused by defendant’s conduct.]

[If you find that [name of plaintiff] would have exercised [his/her/nonbinary pronoun] option to extend the term of the employment contract, then you may consider the total term of [name of plaintiff]’s employment contract to be [specify length of original contract term plus option term].]

New September 2003

Directions for Use

Use CACI No. 3963, Affırmative Defense—Employee’s Duty to Mitigate Damages, if the defendant seeks an offset for wages plaintiff could have earned from similar employment.

Sources and Authority

Damages for Breach of Contract. Civil Code section 3300.
“Stated simply, the contract compensation for the unexpired period of the contract affords a prima facie measure of damages; the actual measured damage, however, is the contract amount reduced by compensation received during the unexpired term; if, however, such other compensation has not been received, the contract amount may still be reduced or eliminated by a showing that the employee, by the exercise of reasonable diligence and effort, could have procured comparable employment and thus mitigated the damages.” (Erler v. Five Points Motors, Inc. (1967) 249 Cal.App.2d 560, 562 [57 Cal.Rptr. 516].)
In appropriate circumstances, the court may authorize the trier of fact to “consider the probability the employee would exercise the option in determining the length of the unexpired term of employment when applying the applicable

WRONGFUL TERMINATION I No. 2422

measure of damages……… ” (Oldenkott v. American Electric, Inc. (1971) 14

Cal.App.3d 198, 204 [92 Cal.Rptr. 127].)

“The trial court correctly found that defendants wrongfully terminated the employment contract and that the measure of damages was the difference between the amount Silva would have received under the contract and that amount which Silva actually received from his other employment.” (Silva v. McCoy (1968) 259 Cal.App.2d 256, 260 [66 Cal.Rptr. 364].)
- “The plaintiff has the burden of proving his damage. The law is settled that he has the duty of minimizing that damage. While the contract wages are prima facie [evidence of] his damage, his actual damage is the amount of money he was out of pocket by reason of the wrongful discharge.” (Erler v. Five Points Motors, Inc., supra, 249 Cal.App.2d at pp. 567–568.)
- “The burden of proof is on the party whose breach caused damage, to establish matters relied on to mitigate damage.” (Steelduct Co. v. Henger-Seltzer Co. (1945) 26 Cal.2d 634, 654 [160 P.2d 804], internal citations omitted.)

Secondary Sources

Chin et al., California Practice Guide: Employment Litigation, 17-B, Contract Damages, ¶¶ 17:81, 17:95, 17:105, 17:495 (The Rutter Group)

Chin et al., California Practice Guide: Employment Litigation, 17-F, Mitigation of Damages (Avoidable Consequences Doctrine), ¶ 17:495 (The Rutter Group)

21 California Forms of Pleading and Practice, Ch. 249, Employment Law: Termination and Discipline, § 249.21 (Matthew Bender)

Good Cause Defined — Defense to Wrongful Termination of Employment

Breach of Implied Employment contract – “Good Cause” Defined

Understanding “Discharge for Good Cause”

“Good Cause” Defined — Understanding “Discharge for Good Cause” Breach of Implied Employment contract –

Definition: In California, “discharge for good cause” refers to terminating an employee for a legitimate, substantial reason related to job performance or business necessity. This contrasts with “at-will” employment, where either party can end the employment relationship without cause.
Implied Employment Contracts: These are agreements based on actions, statements, or company policies implying continued employment. An example is a company handbook stating that employees will only be fired for specific reasons.
Wrongful Termination: Wrongful termination occurs when an employee is fired in violation of an implied contract or for reasons that are illegal, like discrimination or retaliation.

Legal Framework in California

At-Will Presumption: California law generally presumes employment is “at-will,” meaning either employer or employee can terminate the relationship without cause. However, this is subject to exceptions.
Exceptions to At-Will Employment: These include implied contracts, public policy (e.g., firing someone for refusing to break the law), and statutory protections (e.g., anti-discrimination laws).
Proving “Good Cause”: For employers, demonstrating good cause for termination often requires showing a history of poor performance, policy violations, or business reasons, supported by documentation.

Potential Legal Issues and Problems

Ambiguity in Implied Contracts: Determining the existence and terms of an implied contract can be complex. For instance, an employee might argue that positive performance reviews implied job security.
Discrimination Claims: An employee may claim the stated “good cause” was a pretext for discrimination based on race, gender, age, etc., leading to legal challenges.
Retaliation Claims: If an employee is terminated after engaging in protected activities (like whistleblowing), they might claim wrongful termination based on retaliation, even if the employer cites good cause.
Public Policy Violations: Firing an employee for reasons that violate California’s public policy, such as refusing to participate in illegal activities, can lead to wrongful termination claims.

Examples and Reasoning

Performance-Based Termination: An employer dismisses an employee for consistent underperformance. If the employer has documented performance issues and provided opportunities for improvement, this is likely a valid “good cause” termination.
Violation of Policy: Dismissal due to a breach of company policy (e.g., safety violations) can be justified as good cause, provided the policy and consequences are clearly communicated.
Economic Reasons: Layoffs due to economic downturns can constitute good cause, assuming they’re not used as a cover for illegal termination reasons.
Wrongful Termination Case: An employee is fired shortly after filing a discrimination complaint, despite having a good performance record. Even if the employer cites a valid reason, this timing could lead to a wrongful termination lawsuit based on retaliation.

Conclusion

In California, while employers have broad discretion in terminating employment relationships, they must navigate various legal complexities, especially concerning implied contracts and wrongful termination claims. Employers should carefully document performance issues and policy violations to establish “good cause,” while being mindful of potential legal pitfalls such as discrimination, retaliation, and public policy violations.

_______________________________________

Call 310-312-1100 Now to schedule a time to discuss your matter with Attorney John Michael Jensen.

Additional Information

Discharge for Good Cause and Implied Employment Contracts in California:

In California, employment relationships are generally presumed to be “at-will,” meaning that either the employer or the employee can terminate the employment relationship at any time, for any reason, or no reason at all, with or without notice. However, there are exceptions to this rule, and one such exception is when an implied employment contract exists.

1. Implied Employment Contracts:

An implied employment contract arises when there is an understanding, either through oral or written communication or through the actions and practices of the employer, that employment will not be terminated without good cause. These implied contracts can be formed in various ways, such as through verbal promises, employee handbooks, or consistent practices over time.

2. Discharge for Good Cause in Implied Contracts:

When an implied employment contract exists, the employer is generally required to have good cause to terminate the employee. Good cause is typically defined as a substantial, legitimate reason for the termination, such as poor job performance, violation of company policies, or other justifiable factors.

3. Legal Consequences of Discharge for Good Cause in Implied Contracts:

In cases where an implied employment contract is established, discharging an employee without good cause can potentially lead to a wrongful termination claim. This means that if an employer terminates an employee without good cause when such an implied contract exists, the employee may have legal grounds for a lawsuit.

4. Problems That Could Arise:

a. Dispute Over the Existence of an Implied Contract: One challenge in these cases is determining whether an implied employment contract indeed exists. It can be subjective and may depend on the specific circumstances, conversations, and actions between the parties.

Example: Lisa has worked for a company for several years, during which her supervisor consistently praised her and assured her of job security. One day, Lisa is terminated without warning, and she believes it’s without good cause. She argues that the implied contract for continued employment was formed based on her supervisor’s assurances.

b. Defining Good Cause: The interpretation of what constitutes “good cause” can vary and may lead to disputes. Employers and employees may have differing views on whether the termination met this standard.

Example: David is let go by his employer for alleged poor job performance. David argues that he consistently met the performance expectations and that the termination was arbitrary. The employer insists that David’s work did not meet their standards.

c. Inconsistent Practices: If an employer has a history of not terminating employees without good cause but then does so in a particular case, it may lead to legal challenges.

Example: ABC Company has a long-standing practice of only terminating employees for good cause. However, they suddenly fire Sarah without clear justification. Sarah believes this is a breach of the implied contract and files a wrongful termination lawsuit.

d. Documentation and Evidence: Employers must maintain clear records of performance issues, policy violations, or other legitimate reasons for termination to defend against wrongful termination claims.

Example: Mark is terminated for repeated tardiness. His employer, XYZ Inc., maintains detailed records of Mark’s attendance issues, including warnings and discussions about improvement. This documentation helps XYZ Inc. establish good cause for the termination.

Conclusion:

In California, discharge for good cause in the context of an implied employment contract can be complex. While the default presumption is at-will employment, the existence of an implied contract can create legal obligations for employers to terminate only for good cause. Problems can arise when there are disputes over the existence of an implied contract, differing interpretations of good cause, inconsistent practices, and the adequacy of documentation. Employers and employees must carefully consider these factors, and when in doubt, consult with legal counsel to understand their rights and obligations under California employment law. Employees who believe they have been wrongfully terminated should seek legal advice to assess the merits of their potential claims.

Call 310-312-1100 Now to schedule a time to discuss your matter with Attorney John Michael Jensen.

Jury Instruction Good Cause Defined –Defense to Wrongful Termination of Employment

2405. Breach of Implied Employment Contract—Unspecified Term—“Good Cause” Defined—Misconduct

[Name of plaintiff] claims that [name of defendant] did not have good cause to [discharge/demote]

for misconduct. [Name of defendant] had good cause to [discharge/demote] [name of plaintiff] for misconduct if [name of defendant], acting in good faith, conducted an appropriate investigation giving [him/her/nonbinary pronoun/it] reasonable grounds to believe that [name of plaintiff] engaged in misconduct.

An appropriate investigation is one that is reasonable under the circumstances and includes notice to the employee of the claimed misconduct and an opportunity for the employee to answer the charge of misconduct before the decision to [discharge/demote] is made. You may find that [name of defendant] had good cause to [discharge/demote] [name of plaintiff] without deciding if [name of plaintiff] actually engaged in misconduct.

New September 2003

Directions for Use

This instruction should be given when there is a dispute as to whether misconduct, in fact, occurred. (Cotran v. Rollins Hudig Hall International, Inc. (1998) 17 Cal.4th 93 [69 Cal.Rptr.2d 900, 948 P.2d 412].)

Sources and Authority

“The proper inquiry for the jury . . . is not, ‘Did the employee in fact commit the act leading to dismissal?’ It is ‘Was the factual basis on which the employer concluded a dischargeable act had been committed reached honestly, after an appropriate investigation and for reasons that are not arbitrary or pretextual?’ The jury conducts a factual inquiry in both cases, but the questions are not the same. In the first, the jury decides the ultimate truth of the employee’s alleged misconduct. In the second, it focuses on the employer’s response to allegations of misconduct.” (Cotran, supra, 17 Cal.4th at p. 107.)
“ ‘Good cause’ in the context of implied employment contracts is defined as: ‘fair and honest’ reasons, regulated by good faith on the part of the employer, that are not trivial, arbitrary or capricious, unrelated to business needs or goals, or pretextual. A reasoned conclusion, in short, supported by substantial evidence gathered through an adequate investigation that includes notice of the claimed misconduct and a chance for the employee to respond.’ ‘Three factual determinations are relevant to the question of employer liability: (1) did the employer act with good faith in making the decision to terminate; (2) did the decision follow an investigation that was appropriate under the circumstances;

and (3) did the employer have reasonable grounds for believing the employee had engaged in the misconduct.’ ‘Cotran did not delineate the earmarks of an appropriate investigation but noted that investigative fairness contemplates listening to both sides and providing employees a fair opportunity to present their position and to correct or contradict relevant statements prejudicial to their case, without the procedural formalities of a trial.’ ” (Serri v. Santa Clara University (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 830, 872–873 [172 Cal.Rptr.3d 732], internal citations omitted.)

“We have held that appellant has demonstrated a prima facie case of wrongful termination in violation of his contract of employment. The burden of coming forward with evidence as to the reason for appellant’s termination now shifts to the employer. Appellant may attack the employer’s offered explanation, either on the ground that it is pretextual and that the real reason is one prohibited by contract or public policy, or on the ground that it is insufficient to meet the employer’s obligations under contract or applicable legal principles. Appellant bears, however, the ultimate burden of proving that he was terminated wrongfully.” (Pugh v. See’s Candies, Inc. (1981) 116 Cal.App.3d 311, 329–330 [171 Cal.Rptr. 917], disapproved on other grounds in Guz v. Bechtel National Inc. (2000) 24 Cal.4th 317, 350−351 [100 Cal. Rptr. 2d 352, 8 P.3d 1089],

internal citation omitted.)

“[Plaintiff] contends that it was up to a jury to decide whether the [defendant] ‘honestly and objectively reasonably’ believed that her conduct was egregious enough to be ‘gross misconduct’ and that the court therefore erred in granting summary adjudication of her fourth cause of action for breach of contract. Although the elements of the Cotran standard are triable to the jury, ‘if the facts are undisputed or admit of only one conclusion, then summary judgment may be entered . . . .’ ” (Serri, supra, 226 Cal.App.4th at p. 873.)

Secondary Sources

3 Witkin, Summary of California Law (11th ed. 2017) Agency and Employment,

§§ 219, 220, 221

Chin et al., California Practice Guide: Employment Litigation, Ch.4-C, “Good Cause” for Termination, ¶¶ 4:270–4:271, 4:289 (The Rutter Group)

1 Wrongful Employment Termination Practice (Cont.Ed.Bar 2d ed.) Contract Actions, §§ 8.22–8.26

4 Wilcox, California Employment Law, Ch. 60, Liability for Wrongful Termination and Discipline, § 60.09[5][b] (Matthew Bender)

21 California Forms of Pleading and Practice, Ch. 249, Employment Law: Termination and Discipline, §§ 249.21, 249.43 (Matthew Bender)

10 California Points and Authorities, Ch. 100, Employer and Employee: Wrongful Termination and Discipline, §§ 100.25, 100.29 (Matthew Bender) California Civil Practice: Employment Litigation, § 6:19

Breach of Employment Contract Wrongful Termination of Employment

Breach of Employment Contract

Breach of employment contract in the context of wrongful termination falls under the purview of employment law in the state of California. California, like many other states in the United States, recognizes the importance of employment contracts as legally binding agreements between employers and employees. When either party breaches the terms of an employment contract, particularly in cases of wrongful termination, there can be significant legal consequences.

Overview of Employment Contracts in California:

Employment contracts in California can take various forms, including written contracts, oral agreements, or implied contracts based on the employer’s actions or statements. The terms and conditions of employment are generally governed by these agreements. While at-will employment is common in California (meaning employers or employees can terminate the employment relationship at any time, for any reason, with or without notice), employment contracts may alter this default arrangement by specifying terms and conditions of employment, including termination procedures.

Wrongful Termination

Wrongful Termination: Wrongful termination occurs when an employer violates the terms of an employment contract, an implied contract, or state and federal employment laws when terminating an employee. Common examples of wrongful termination in California include:a. Discrimination: Termination based on an employee’s race, gender, age, disability, sexual orientation, or other protected characteristics violates anti-discrimination laws such as the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) and federal laws like Title VII.b. Retaliation: Dismissing an employee for engaging in legally protected activities, such as whistleblowing or filing a complaint about workplace safety violations, is considered retaliation and is unlawful under California law.c. Breach of Contract: Failing to follow the termination procedures outlined in an employment contract can also constitute wrongful termination.

Legal Consequences of Breach of Employment Contract:

Legal Consequences of Breach of Employment Contract: When an employer breaches an employment contract, the consequences can be severe. Employees who believe they have been wrongfully terminated can take legal action against their employers. Legal remedies in California may include:a. Damages: Wrongfully terminated employees may be entitled to damages, including lost wages, benefits, and potentially punitive damages in cases of egregious misconduct.b. Reinstatement: In some cases, a court may order the employer to reinstate the employee to their former position.c. Attorney’s Fees and Costs: If an employee prevails in a wrongful termination lawsuit, the court may require the employer to pay the employee’s attorney’s fees and court costs.

Problems That Could Arise:a. Proving Wrongful Termination:

Problems That Could Arise:a. Proving Wrongful Termination: One challenge in wrongful termination cases is proving that the termination was indeed wrongful. Employers may argue that the termination was for legitimate reasons unrelated to discrimination, retaliation, or breach of contract.Example: An employee claims they were fired due to age discrimination, while the employer asserts that they were terminated for poor job performance. Proving discrimination can be challenging without strong evidence.b. Statute of Limitations: Wrongful termination claims in California have statutes of limitations, which vary depending on the type of claim. Failing to file a claim within the specified time frame can result in the loss of legal remedies.c. Contract Interpretation: Disputes may arise over the interpretation of employment contracts, particularly if the terms are ambiguous or open to different interpretations.Example: An employment contract specifies a termination procedure but does not define “just cause.” The employer may argue that they had just cause for termination, while the employee disagrees.

Conclusion

In conclusion, wrongful termination in breach of employment contracts in California can lead to complex legal disputes with significant consequences for both employers and employees. It’s essential for parties to understand their rights and obligations, seek legal counsel when necessary, and ensure compliance with employment laws and contract terms to avoid potential legal pitfalls.

______________

Call 310-312-1100 Now to schedule a time to discuss your matter with Attorney John Michael Jensen.

Additional Information

Breach of employment contract in the context of wrongful termination and employment law in California is an intricate subject with various legal facets.

Legal Framework

Nature of Employment Contracts in California:
- California generally adheres to “at-will” employment, meaning either party can terminate the employment relationship without cause. However, employment contracts can modify this at-will presumption, stipulating terms for termination.
- Contracts can be written, oral, or implied through company policies or employee handbooks.
Types of Employment Contracts:
- Fixed-Term Contracts: Specify a definite employment duration.
- Contracts Imposing Limitations on Termination: May require cause for termination.
Statutes Governing Breach of Contract:
- The California Labor Code and relevant case law govern employment contracts and their breach.

Legal Consequences of Breach

Damages:
- Economic losses, including lost wages and benefits.
- Potential compensation for emotional distress.
- Rarely, punitive damages in cases of egregious behavior.
Specific Performance:
- In some cases, a court might order specific performance, requiring the employer to fulfill the terms of the contract.

Potential Problems

Proving the Existence of a Contract:
- Particularly with oral or implied contracts, establishing their existence and terms can be challenging.
Determining What Constitutes a ‘Breach’:
- Interpreting contract terms to decide whether a breach occurred can be complex, especially with vaguely worded agreements.
Mitigation of Damages:
- The fired employee is often required to mitigate damages by seeking new employment, complicating damage calculations.

Examples

Breach of a Fixed-Term Contract:
- An employee with a three-year contract is terminated after one year without cause, contrary to contract terms. The employee could claim damages for the remaining contract term.
Violation of Termination Clauses:
- A contract requiring termination for cause, but the employee is fired without any stated cause or due process as outlined in the contract.

Reasoning and Logic

Contract Interpretation: Courts will interpret employment contracts by examining the language of the contract, the conduct of the parties, and any relevant industry practices.
Damages Calculation: The primary goal in breach of contract cases is to put the injured party in the position they would have been in had the breach not occurred. This often means calculating lost wages and benefits.
At-Will Presumption: Unless an employment contract explicitly states otherwise, employment is typically at-will. This can complicate breach claims as employers can argue that no specific terms were breached due to the at-will nature of the employment.

Conclusion

Breach of employment contract cases in California hinge on the nature of the contract, the circumstances of the termination, and the ability of the employee to demonstrate that a breach occurred. These cases often involve complex legal interpretations and significant factual investigations to determine the existence and terms of a contract and whether a breach occurred. The balance between the at-will employment presumption and contractually stipulated job security plays a critical role in these disputes.

Call 310-312-1100 Now to schedule a time to discuss your matter with Attorney John Michael Jensen.

Jury Instruction Actual or Constructive Discharge — Wrongful Termination of Employment

2401. Breach of Employment Contract—Unspecified Term—Actual or Constructive Discharge—Essential Factual Elements

[Name of plaintiff] claims that [name of defendant] breached their employment contract [by forcing [name of plaintiff] to resign]. To establish this claim, [name of plaintiff] must prove all of the following:

That [name of plaintiff] and [name of defendant] entered into an employment relationship. [An employment contract or a provision in an employment contract may be [written or oral/partly written and partly oral/created by the conduct of the parties]];
That [name of defendant] promised, by words or conduct, to discharge [name of plaintiff] [specify the nature of the alleged agreement, e.g., only for good cause];
That [name of plaintiff] substantially performed [his/her/nonbinary pronoun] job duties [unless [name of plaintiff]’s performance was excused [or prevented]];
That [name of defendant] [constructively] discharged [name of plaintiff] [e.g., without good cause];
That [name of plaintiff] was harmed; and
That [name of defendant]’s breach of contract was a substantial factor in causing [name of plaintiff]’s harm.

New September 2003; Revised November 2018

Directions for Use

Element 3 on substantial performance should not be confused with the “good cause” defense: “The action is primarily for breach of contract. It was therefore incumbent upon plaintiff to prove that he was able and offered to fulfill all obligations imposed upon him by the contract. Plaintiff failed to meet this requirement; by voluntarily withdrawing from the contract he excused further performance by defendant.” (Kane

v. Sklar (1954) 122 Cal.App.2d 480, 482 [265 P.2d 29], internal citation omitted.) Element 3 may be deleted if substantial performance is not a disputed issue.

An employee may be “constructively” discharged if the employer intentionally created or knowingly permitted working conditions to exist that were so intolerable that a reasonable person would have had no reasonable alternative except to resign. (Turner v. Anheuser-Busch, Inc. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 1238, 1251 [32 Cal.Rptr.2d 223, 876 P.2d 1022].) If constructive rather than actual discharge is alleged, include “by forcing [name of plaintiff] to resign” in the introductory paragraph and “constructively” in element 4. Then also give CACI No. 2510, “Constructive Discharge” Explained.

Elements 2 and 4 may be modified for adverse employment actions other than discharge, for example demotion. The California Supreme Court has extended the implied contract theory to encompass adverse employment actions that violate the terms of an implied contract. (See Scott v. Pac. Gas & Elec. Co. (1995) 11 Cal.4th 454, 473-474 [46 Cal.Rptr.2d 427, 904 P.2d 834].) See CACI No. 2509, “Adverse

Employment Action” Explained.

For an instruction on damages, give CACI No. 3903P, Damages From Employer for Wrongful Discharge (Economic Damage). See also CACI No. 304, Oral or Written Contract Terms, and CACI No. 305, Implied-in-Fact Contract.

Sources and Authority

At-Will Employment. Labor Code section 2922.
Contractual Conditions Precedent. Civil Code section 1439.
“Where there is no express agreement, the issue is whether other evidence of the parties’ conduct has a ‘tendency in reason’ to demonstrate the existence of an actual mutual understanding on particular terms and conditions of employment. If such evidence logically permits conflicting inferences, a question of fact is presented. But where the undisputed facts negate the existence or the breach of the contract claimed, summary judgment is proper.” (Guz v. Bechtel National, Inc. (2000) 24 Cal.4th 317, 337 [100 Cal.Rptr.2d 352, 8 P.3d 1089], internal citations omitted.)
The employee bears the ultimate burden of proving that he or she was wrongfully terminated. (Pugh v. See’s Candies, Inc. (Pugh I) (1981) 116 Cal.App.3d 311, 330 [171 Cal.Rptr. 917].)
“The presumption that an employment relationship of indefinite duration is intended to be terminable at will is therefore ‘subject, like any presumption, to contrary evidence. This may take the form of an agreement, express or implied, that . . . the employment relationship will continue indefinitely, pending the occurrence of some event such as the employer’s dissatisfaction with the employee’s services or the existence of some “cause” for termination.’ ” (Foley

v. Interactive Data Corp. (1988) 47 Cal.3d 654, 680 [254 Cal.Rptr. 211, 765 P.2d 373], internal citation omitted.)

“In Foley, we identified several factors, apart from express terms, that may bear upon ‘the existence and content of an . . . [implied-in-fact] agreement’ placing limits on the employer’s right to discharge an employee. These factors might include ‘ “the personnel policies or practices of the employer, the employee’s longevity of service, actions or communications by the employer reflecting assurances of continued employment, and the practices of the industry in which the employee is engaged.” ’ ” (Guz v. Bechtel National, Inc. (2000) 24 Cal.4th 317, 336–337 [100 Cal.Rptr.2d 352, 8 P.3d 1089], internal citations omitted.)
“Standing alone, constructive discharge is neither a tort nor a breach of contract, but a doctrine that transforms what is ostensibly a resignation into a firing. Even after establishing constructive discharge, an employee must independently prove

a breach of contract or tort in connection with employment termination in order to obtain damages for wrongful discharge.” (Turner v. Anheuser-Busch, Inc. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 1238, 1251 [32 Cal.Rptr.2d 223, 876 P.2d 1022], original italics, internal citation omitted.)

“Constructive discharge occurs when the employer’s conduct effectively forces an employee to resign. Although the employee may say, ‘I quit,’ the employment relationship is actually severed involuntarily by the employer’s acts, against the employee’s will. As a result, a constructive discharge is legally regarded as a firing rather than a resignation.” (Turner, supra, 7 Cal.4th at pp. 1244–1245, internal citation omitted.)
- “In order to amount to a constructive discharge, adverse working conditions must be unusually ‘aggravated’ or amount to a ‘continuous pattern’ before the situation will be deemed intolerable. In general, ‘[s]ingle, trivial, or isolated acts of [misconduct] are insufficient’ to support a constructive discharge claim. Moreover, a poor performance rating or a demotion, even when accompanied by reduction in pay, does not by itself trigger a constructive discharge.” (Turner, supra, 7 Cal.4th at p. 1247, internal citation and fns. omitted.)
- “Whether conditions were so intolerable as to justify a reasonable employee’s decision to resign is normally a question of fact.” (Valdez v. City of Los Angeles (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 1043, 1056 [282 Cal.Rptr. 726].)
- “In some circumstances, a single intolerable incident, such as a crime of violence against an employee by an employer, or an employer’s ultimatum that an employee commit a crime, may constitute a constructive discharge. Such misconduct potentially could be found ‘aggravated.’ ” (Turner, supra, 7 Cal.4th at p. 1247, fn. 3.)
- “Each individual incident need not be sufficient standing alone to force a resignation; rather, the accumulation of discriminatory treatment over time can amount to intolerable working conditions.” (Brome v. California Highway Patrol (2020) 44 Cal.App.5th 786, 801–802 [258 Cal.Rptr.3d 83].)
- “[T]he standard by which a constructive discharge is determined is an objective one—the question is ‘whether a reasonable person faced with the allegedly intolerable employer actions or conditions of employment would have no reasonable alternative except to quit.’ ” (Turner, supra, 7 Cal.4th at p. 1248, internal citations omitted.)
- “In order to establish a constructive discharge, an employee must plead and prove, by the usual preponderance of the evidence standard, that the employer either intentionally created or knowingly permitted working conditions that were so intolerable or aggravated at the time of the employee’s resignation that a reasonable employer would realize that a reasonable person in the employee’s position would be compelled to resign. [¶] For purposes of this standard, the requisite knowledge or intent must exist on the part of either the employer or those persons who effectively represent the employer, i.e., its officers, directors, managing agents, or supervisory employees.” (Turner, supra, 7 Cal.4th at p. 1251.)

“The length of time the plaintiff remained on the job may be one relevant factor in determining the intolerability of employment conditions from the standpoint of a reasonable person. Neither logic nor precedent suggests it should always be dispositive.” (Turner, supra, 7 Cal.4th at p. 1254, original italics.)
“ ‘Good cause’ or ‘just cause’ for termination connotes ‘ “a fair and honest cause or reason,” ’ regulated by the good faith of the employer. The term is relative. Whether good cause exists is dependent upon the particular circumstances of each case. In deciding whether good cause exists, there must be a balance between the employer’s interest in operating its business efficiently and profitably and the employee’s interest in continued employment. Care must be exercised so as not to interfere with the employer’s legitimate exercise of managerial discretion. While the scope of such discretion is substantial, it is not unrestricted. Good cause is not properly found where the asserted reasons for discharge are ‘trivial, capricious, unrelated to business needs or goals, or pretextual.’ Where there is a contract to terminate only for good cause, the employer has no right to terminate for an arbitrary or unreasonable decision.” (Walker v. Blue Cross of California (1992) 4 Cal.App.4th 985, 994 [6 Cal.Rptr.2d 184], internal citations omitted, abrogated on another ground in Guz, supra, 24 Cal.4th at p. 351.)
“The general rule is that the measure of recovery by a wrongfully discharged employee is the amount of salary agreed upon for the period of service, less the amount which the employer affirmatively proves the employee has earned or with reasonable effort might have earned from other employment.” (Parker v. Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corp. (1970) 3 Cal.3d 176, 181 [89 Cal.Rptr. 737,

474 P.2d 689], internal citations omitted.)

Secondary Sources

Chin et al., California Practice Guide: Employment Litigation, Ch.4-A, Employment Presumed At Will, ¶¶ 4:2, 4:8, 4:15 (The Rutter Group)

Chin et al., California Practice Guide: Employment Litigation Ch.4-B, Agreements Limiting At-Will Termination, ¶¶ 4:65, 4:81, 4:105 (The Rutter Group)

Chin et al., California Practice Guide: Employment Litigation, Ch.4-C, “Good Cause” for Termination, ¶¶ 4:270–4:273 (The Rutter Group)

1 Wrongful Employment Termination Practice (Cont.Ed.Bar 2d ed.) Contract Actions, §§ 8.4–8.20B

4 Wilcox, California Employment Law, Ch. 60, Liability for Wrongful Termination and Discipline, §§ 60.05, 60.07 (Matthew Bender)

21 California Forms of Pleading and Practice, Ch. 249, Employment Law: Termination and Discipline, §§ 249.10, 249.15, 249.43, 249.90, Ch. 250, Employment Law: Wage and Hour Disputes, § 250.66 (Matthew Bender)

5 California Points and Authorities, Ch. 50, Contracts, §§ 50.10, 50.11 (Matthew Bender)

10 California Points and Authorities, Ch. 100, Employer and Employee: Wrongful Termination and Discipline, §§ 100.21, 100.22, 100.28, 100.29, 100.31 (Matthew

Bender) California Civil Practice: Employment Litigation §§ 6:9–6:11 (Thomson Reuters)

Constructive Discharge–Wrongful Termination of Employment

Constructive Discharge Explained

Constructive discharge, in the context of wrongful termination and employment law in California, is a significant legal concept with intricate implications. Here’s an extensive overview of constructive discharge, its legal backdrop, potential problems, and illustrative examples:

Definition and Legal Framework

Constructive Discharge: It occurs when an employee’s resignation or retirement is so heavily influenced by the employer’s unlawful conduct that it can be considered a termination. Essentially, the working conditions become so intolerable that a reasonable person in the employee’s position would feel compelled to resign.
Legal Basis in California: This concept is primarily governed by the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) and interpreted through various court decisions. FEHA prohibits employment practices that discriminate based on specific protected characteristics.

Application in Legal Context

Requirements for Constructive Discharge: To establish a claim, an employee must demonstrate:
- The employer’s conduct effectively altered the conditions of employment.
- The conduct was severe or pervasive enough to create a hostile work environment.
- A reasonable person in similar circumstances would feel compelled to resign.
Relation to Wrongful Termination: Constructive discharge is often linked with wrongful termination claims, where the resignation is a result of discrimination, harassment, or retaliation.

Legal Consequences

For Employees: If constructive discharge is proven, the employee may be entitled to damages similar to those in wrongful termination cases, including lost wages, benefits, emotional distress, and sometimes punitive damages.
For Employers: Employers found liable for constructive discharge face similar penalties to those in wrongful termination cases, including financial damages, legal fees, and potential reputational harm.

Problems and Challenges

Proving Constructive Discharge: Establishing that working conditions were intolerable is subjective and challenging. The burden of proof lies heavily on the employee.
Interpretation of “Intolerable” Conditions: Determining what constitutes intolerable conditions can vary greatly depending on the specifics of the case.
Employee’s Decision to Resign: The timing and decision-making process of the employee’s resignation are critical factors and can complicate the case.
Documentation and Evidence: Both parties must thoroughly document events and communications, which can be complex and contentious.

Examples

Example of Constructive Discharge: An employee is subjected to severe and ongoing sexual harassment, and despite complaints, the employer fails to take appropriate action. Feeling unsafe and stressed, the employee resigns. This scenario could constitute constructive discharge.
Example of Non-Constructive Discharge: An employee resigns due to general dissatisfaction with new management policies that are applied uniformly to all employees. This situation likely would not meet the criteria for constructive discharge.

Conclusion

Constructive discharge is a complex area of employment law in California, requiring a nuanced understanding of the conditions that can make a resignation effectively a termination. Both employees and employers must be aware of the legal thresholds and implications of such scenarios. Due to the complexities involved, legal advice from experts in employment law is often crucial in navigating and resolving these issues.

Call 310-312-1100 Now to schedule a time to discuss your matter with Attorney John Michael Jensen.

2510. “Constructive Discharge” Explained

[Name of plaintiff] must prove that [he/she/nonbinary pronoun] was constructively discharged. To establish constructive discharge, [name of plaintiff] must prove the following:

That [name of defendant] [through [name of defendant]’s officers, directors, managing agents, or supervisory employees] intentionally created or knowingly permitted working conditions to exist that were so intolerable that a reasonable person in [name of plaintiff]’s position would have had no reasonable alternative except to resign; and
That [name of plaintiff] resigned because of these working conditions.

In order to be sufficiently intolerable, adverse working conditions must be unusually aggravated or amount to a continuous pattern. In general, single, trivial, or isolated acts of misconduct are insufficient to support a constructive discharge claim. But in some circumstances, a single intolerable incident may constitute a constructive discharge.

New June 2012; Revised May 2019, May 2020

Directions for Use

Give this instruction with CACI No. 2401, Breach of Employment Contract—Unspecified Term—Actual or Constructive Discharge—Essential Factual Elements, CACI No. 2500, Disparate Treatment—Essential Factual Elements, CACI No. 2505, Retaliation, CACI No. 2540, Disability Discrimination—Disparate Treatment—Essential Factual Elements, CACI No. 2560, Religious Creed Discrimination—Failure to Accommodate—Essential Factual Elements, or CACI No. 2570, Age Discrimination—Disparate Treatment—Essential Factual Elements, if the employee alleges that because of the employer’s actions, the employee had no reasonable alternative other than to leave the employment. Constructive discharge can constitute the adverse employment action required to establish a FEHA violation for discrimination or retaliation. (See Steele v. Youthful Offender Parole Bd. (2008) 162 Cal.App.4th 1241, 1253 [76 Cal.Rptr.3d 632].)

Sources and Authority

“[C]onstructive discharge occurs only when an employer terminates employment by forcing the employee to resign. A constructive discharge is equivalent to a dismissal, although it is accomplished indirectly. Constructive discharge occurs only when the employer coerces the employee’s resignation, either by creating working conditions that are intolerable under an objective standard, or by failing to remedy objectively intolerable working conditions that actually are known to

CACI No. 2510 FAIR EMPLOYMENT AND HOUSING ACT

the employer. We have said ‘a constructive discharge is legally regarded as a firing rather than a resignation.’ ” (Mullins v. Rockwell Internat. Corp. (1997) 15 Cal.4th 731, 737 [63 Cal.Rptr.2d 636, 936 P.2d 1246], internal citations omitted.)

“Actual discharge carries significant legal consequences for employers, including possible liability for wrongful discharge. In an attempt to avoid liability, an employer may refrain from actually firing an employee, preferring instead to engage in conduct causing him or her to quit. The doctrine of constructive discharge addresses such employer-attempted ‘end runs’ around wrongful discharge and other claims requiring employer-initiated terminations of employment.” (Turner v. Anheuser-Busch, Inc. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 1238, 1244 [32

Cal.Rptr.2d 223, 876 P.2d 1022].)

“Standing alone, constructive discharge is neither a tort nor a breach of contract, but a doctrine that transforms what is ostensibly a resignation into a firing.” (Turner, supra, 7 Cal.4th at p. 1251.)
“In order to amount to constructive discharge, adverse working conditions must be unusually ‘aggravated’ or amount to a ‘continuous pattern’ before the situation will be deemed intolerable. In general, ‘[s]ingle, trivial, or isolated acts of [misconduct] are insufficient’ to support a constructive discharge claim. Moreover, a poor performance rating or a demotion, even when accompanied by reduction in pay, does not by itself trigger a constructive discharge.” (Turner, supra, 7 Cal.4th at p. 1247, internal citation and footnotes omitted.)
“In some circumstances, a single intolerable incident, such as a crime of violence against an employee by an employer, or an employer’s ultimatum that an employee commit a crime, may constitute a constructive discharge. Such misconduct potentially could be found ‘aggravated.’ ” (Turner, supra, 7 Cal.4th at p. 1247, fn. 3.)
“Although situations may exist where the employee’s decision to resign is unreasonable as a matter of law, ‘[w]hether conditions were so intolerable as to justify a reasonable employee’s decision to resign is normally a question of fact. [Citation.]’ ” (Vasquez v. Franklin Management Real Estate Fund, Inc. (2013) 222 Cal.App.4th 819, 827 [166 Cal.Rptr.3d 242].)
“[T]he standard by which a constructive discharge is determined is an objective one—the question is ‘whether a reasonable person faced with the allegedly intolerable employer actions or conditions of employment would have no reasonable alternative except to quit.’ ” (Turner, supra, 7 Cal.4th at p. 1248, internal citations omitted.)
“[U]nder Turner, the proper focus is on the working conditions themselves, not on the plaintiff’s subjective reaction to those conditions.” (Simers v. Los Angeles Times Communications, LLC (2018) 18 Cal.App.5th 1248, 1272 [227 Cal.Rptr.3d

695], original italics.)

“The length of time the plaintiff remained on the job may be one relevant factor in determining the intolerability of employment conditions from the standpoint

FAIR E CACI No. 2510

of a reasonable person.” (Turner, supra, 7 Cal.4th at p. 1254, original italics.)

“[T]here was, as the trial court found, substantial evidence that plaintiff’s age and disability were ‘substantial motivating reason[s]’ for the adverse employment action or actions to which plaintiff was subjected. But the discriminatory motive for plaintiff’s working conditions has no bearing on whether the evidence was sufficient to establish constructive discharge.” (Simers, supra, 18 Cal.App.5th at p. 1271.)
- “In order to establish a constructive discharge, an employee must plead and prove, by the usual preponderance of the evidence standard, that the employer either intentionally created or knowingly permitted working conditions that were so intolerable or aggravated at the time of the employee’s resignation that a reasonable employer would realize that a reasonable person in the employee’s position would be compelled to resign. [¶] For purposes of this standard, the requisite knowledge or intent must exist on the part of either the employer or those persons who effectively represent the employer, i.e., its officers, directors, managing agents, or supervisory employees.” (Turner, supra, 7 Cal.4th at p. 1251.)

Secondary Sources

3 Witkin, Summary of California Law (11th ed. 2017) Agency and Employment,

§ 238

Chin et al., California Practice Guide: Employment Litigation, Ch. 4-G, Constructive Discharge, ¶ 4:405 et seq. (The Rutter Group)

3 Wilcox, California Employment Law, Ch. 43, Civil Actions Under Equal Employment Opportunity Laws, § 43.01 (Matthew Bender)

11 California Forms of Pleading and Practice, Ch. 115, Civil Rights: Employment Discrimination, § 115.34 (Matthew Bender)

21 California Forms of Pleading and Practice, Ch. 249, Employment Law: Termination and Discipline, § 249.15 (Matthew Bender)

10 California Points and Authorities, Ch. 100, Employer and Employee: Wrongful Termination and Discipline, § 100.31 et seq. (Matthew Bender)

Constructive Discharge Wrongful Termination of Employment

Constructive Discharge- Intolerable Conditions

Constructive Discharge in Violation of Public Policy, specifically when the plaintiff is required to endure intolerable conditions that violate public policy, is a significant aspect of wrongful termination and employment law in the state of California. This legal concept arises when an employee is subjected to working conditions so unbearable that they are essentially forced to resign, and these conditions violate fundamental public policy principles. In such cases, the law provides remedies for employees who are forced to endure intolerable conditions that go against established public policy.

Overview of Constructive Discharge in Violation of Public Policy:

Definition: Constructive discharge occurs when an employer creates a working environment so hostile, oppressive, or intolerable that a reasonable person in the same situation would feel compelled to resign. In California, constructive discharge claims can be based on various violations of public policy.
Violation of Public Policy: To succeed in a constructive discharge claim, the employee must demonstrate that the working conditions that led to their resignation violated a fundamental public policy. Public policy includes laws, regulations, and societal norms that protect employees from harm or discrimination, such as workplace safety, anti-discrimination laws, and laws prohibiting retaliation.

Essential Factual Allegations:

For a successful constructive discharge claim in California, the plaintiff typically needs to prove the following elements:

Intolerable Working Conditions: The plaintiff must establish that the working conditions were so intolerable that a reasonable person in their position would find it impossible to continue working under those circumstances. This involves demonstrating the severity and persistence of the adverse conditions.
Causation: The plaintiff needs to establish a direct link between the intolerable conditions and their resignation. They must demonstrate that it was the employer’s actions, policies, or negligence that compelled them to resign.
Public Policy Violation: The employee must provide evidence that the employer’s actions or the working conditions leading to their resignation violated a fundamental public policy. This could involve pointing to specific statutes, regulations, or established legal principles.
Plaintiff’s Reasonable Response: It must be shown that the employee’s resignation was a reasonable response to the intolerable conditions created by the employer. This means the employee didn’t quit arbitrarily but made a logical decision based on the circumstances.

Problems that Could Arise:

Several challenges and complexities may arise in constructive discharge cases in California:

Subjective vs. Objective Standard: Determining whether the working conditions were objectively intolerable often involves subjectivity. Different individuals may have varying thresholds for what is intolerable, making it challenging to establish a universal standard.
Evidence and Documentation: Proving a constructive discharge claim requires strong evidence of intolerable conditions and a violation of public policy. Documenting incidents, preserving evidence, and having credible witnesses can be crucial.
Retaliation: Employers may argue that the employee’s resignation was voluntary and not due to intolerable conditions. They might assert that the employee left for personal reasons or simply didn’t like the job.
Defining Public Policy: Determining what constitutes a fundamental violation of public policy can be contentious. Courts must carefully evaluate whether the employer’s actions or policies genuinely contravene established public policy principles.

Examples:

Sexual Harassment: An employee experiences persistent and severe sexual harassment at the workplace, and despite reporting it to their employer, no effective action is taken to address the issue. The employee resigns due to the hostile work environment and could claim constructive discharge based on a violation of public policy against sexual harassment.
Unsafe Working Conditions: An employee working in a construction company is repeatedly required to work without proper safety equipment, even after reporting safety violations. Fearing for their life and well-being, the employee resigns and claims constructive discharge based on violations of public policy related to workplace safety.

Conclusion

In summary, Constructive Discharge in Violation of Public Policy, where the plaintiff is required to endure intolerable conditions that violate public policy, is a critical aspect of California employment law. It serves as a legal remedy for employees who are effectively forced to resign due to unbearable working conditions that contravene established public policy principles. However, these cases can be legally intricate and factually challenging, requiring careful evaluation of the specific circumstances and evidence presented. Employers must be vigilant in ensuring a safe, non-discriminatory, and compliant work environment to mitigate potential liability for constructive discharge claims.

_______________

Call 310-312-1100 Now to schedule a time to discuss your matter with Attorney John Michael Jensen.

Additional Information

Constructive discharge in violation of public policy in the context of California employment law is a nuanced and complex area.

Legal Framework

Definition of Constructive Discharge: Constructive discharge occurs when an employee’s working conditions become so intolerable that they feel compelled to resign. Although not explicitly fired, the circumstances effectively force them to quit.
Violation of Public Policy: In California, for a constructive discharge to violate public policy, the intolerable conditions must contravene fundamental policies expressed in constitutional provisions, statutes, or regulations. This typically involves violations of anti-discrimination laws, labor codes, or health and safety regulations.
Legal Precedents: California courts have established criteria through various cases, like Turner v. Anheuser-Busch, Inc. (1994), which requires that the working conditions be so unusually adverse that a reasonable person in the employee’s position would feel compelled to resign.

Essential Factual Allegations

Intolerable Working Conditions: The employee must demonstrate that the working conditions were objectively intolerable. This goes beyond mere unpleasantness or stress.
Employer’s Knowledge or Participation: It must be shown that the employer either deliberately created the conditions or knowingly permitted them to exist.
Violation of Specific Public Policies: The employee needs to pinpoint the exact public policy violated by the employer’s actions.
Direct Causation: There must be a clear causal link between the intolerable working conditions and the employee’s resignation.

Potential Problems

Subjectivity of ‘Intolerable Conditions’: Determining what constitutes intolerable conditions can be subjective and varies case by case, making legal outcomes unpredictable.
Proof of Employer’s Intent: Proving that the employer intentionally created or allowed the intolerable conditions can be challenging.
Public Policy Ambiguity: Identifying a specific public policy and demonstrating its violation is often complex, as public policies can be broad or ambiguous.
Risk of Retaliation Claims: Employers may face retaliation claims if they are perceived to have forced out an employee for complaining about illegal or unethical practices.

Examples and Reasoning

Example of Discriminatory Environment: An employee subjected to severe and pervasive racial harassment may resign and claim constructive discharge. The intolerable conditions (racial harassment) violate public policy (anti-discrimination laws).
Health and Safety Neglect: An employee who quits due to unsafe working conditions, like exposure to toxic substances without proper safety measures, can argue constructive discharge if these conditions violate occupational safety regulations.
Whistleblower Retaliation: An employee resigns after being demoted and harassed for reporting corporate fraud. This could be a constructive discharge, as whistleblower protections are grounded in public policy.

Logic and Reasoning

The logic behind constructive discharge is to recognize situations where an employer effectively “fires” an employee through intolerable conditions, bypassing legal protections against wrongful termination.
The requirement for a public policy violation ensures that the law protects significant societal interests, not just personal grievances.
The criteria for proving constructive discharge aim to balance protecting employees from abusive practices while preventing frivolous claims against employers.

Conclusion

Constructive discharge in violation of public policy in California’s employment law serves as a crucial legal tool for employees facing egregious working conditions that force them to resign. However, its application is complex, requiring clear evidence of intolerable conditions, violation of specific public policies, and a direct causal link to the employee’s resignation. The subjective nature of these criteria and the need for precise legal arguments make navigating such cases challenging for both employees and employers.

Call 310-312-1100 Now to schedule a time to discuss your matter with Attorney John Michael Jensen.

2432. Constructive Discharge in Violation of Public Policy—Plaintiff Required to Endure Intolerable Conditions That Violate Public Policy

[Name of plaintiff] claims that [name of defendant] forced [him/her/nonbinary pronoun] to resign for reasons that violate public policy. It is a violation of public policy [specify claim in case, e.g., for an employer to require an employee to work more than forty hours a week for less than minimum wage]. To establish this claim, [name of plaintiff] must prove all of the following:

That [name of plaintiff] was employed by [name of defendant];
That [name of plaintiff] was subjected to working conditions that violated public policy, in that [describe conditions imposed on the employee that constitute the violation, e.g., “[name of plaintiff] was required to work more than forty hours a week for less than minimum wage”];
That [name of defendant] intentionally created or knowingly permitted these working conditions;
That these working conditions were so intolerable that a reasonable person in [name of plaintiff]’s position would have had no reasonable alternative except to resign;
That [name of plaintiff] resigned because of these working conditions;
That [name of plaintiff] was harmed; and
That the working conditions were a substantial factor in causing [name of plaintiff]’s harm.

To be intolerable, the adverse working conditions must be unusually aggravated or involve a continuous pattern of mistreatment. Trivial acts are insufficient.

New September 2003; Revised December 2014, June 2015, May 2020

Directions for Use

This instruction should be given if the plaintiff claims that the plaintiff’s constructive termination was wrongful because defendant subjected plaintiff to intolerable working conditions in violation of public policy. The instruction must be supplemented with CACI No. 3903P, Damages From Employer for Wrongful Discharge (Economic Damage). See also CACI No. 2510, “Constructive Discharge” Explained.

The judge should determine whether the purported reason for plaintiff’s resignation would amount to a violation of public policy. (See Gantt v. Sentry Insurance (1992) 1 Cal.4th 1083, 1092 [4 Cal.Rptr.2d 874, 824 P.2d 680], overruled on other grounds

in Green v. Ralee Engineering Co. (1998) 19 Cal.4th 66, 80 fn. 6 [78 Cal.Rptr.2d 16, 960 P.2d 1046].) The jury should then be instructed that the alleged conduct would constitute a public-policy violation if proved.

Whether conditions are so intolerable as to justify the employee’s decision to quit rather than endure them is to be judged by an objective reasonable-employee standard. (Turner v. Anheuser-Busch, Inc. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 1238, 1247 [32

Cal.Rptr.2d 223, 876 P.2d 1022].) This standard is captured in element 4. The paragraph at the end of the instruction gives the jury additional guidance as to what makes conditions intolerable. (See id. at p. 1247.) Note that in some circumstances, a single intolerable incident, such as a crime of violence against an employee by an employer, or an employer’s ultimatum that an employee commit a crime, may constitute a constructive discharge. (Id. at p. 1247, fn. 3.)

Sources and Authority

“[W]hen an employer’s discharge of an employee violates fundamental principles of public policy, the discharged employee may maintain a tort action and recover damages traditionally available in such actions.” (Tameny v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (1980) 27 Cal.3d 167, 170 [164 Cal.Rptr. 839, 610 P.2d 1330].)
“[T]his court established a set of requirements that a policy must satisfy to support a tortious discharge claim. First, the policy must be supported by either constitutional or statutory provisions. Second, the policy must be ‘public’ in the sense that it ‘inures to the benefit of the public’ rather than serving merely the interests of the individual. Third, the policy must have been articulated at the time of the discharge. Fourth, the policy must be ‘fundamental’ and ‘substantial.’ ” (Stevenson v. Superior Court (1997) 16 Cal.4th 880, 889–890 [66

Cal.Rptr.2d 888, 941 P.2d 1157], footnote omitted.)

“In addition to statutes and constitutional provisions, valid administrative regulations may also serve as a source of fundamental public policy that impacts on an employer’s right to discharge employees when such regulations implement fundamental public policy found in their enabling statutes.” (D’sa v. Playhut, Inc. (2000) 85 Cal.App.4th 927, 933 [102 Cal.Rptr.2d 495], internal citation omitted.)
“Plaintiffs assert, in essence, that they were terminated for refusing to engage in conduct that violated fundamental public policy, to wit, nonconsensual sexual acts. They also assert, in effect, that they were discharged in retaliation for attempting to exercise a fundamental right—the right to be free from sexual assault and harassment. Under either theory, plaintiffs, in short, should have been granted leave to amend to plead a cause of action for wrongful discharge in violation of public policy.” (Rojo v. Kliger (1990) 52 Cal.3d 65, 91 [276

Cal.Rptr. 130, 801 P.2d 373].)

“Constructive discharge occurs when the employer’s conduct effectively forces an employee to resign. Although the employee may say, ‘I quit,’ the employment

WRONGFUL TERMINATION CACI No. 2432

relationship is actually severed involuntarily by the employer’s acts, against the employee’s will. As a result, a constructive discharge is legally regarded as a firing rather than a resignation.” (Turner, supra, 7 Cal.4th at pp. 1244–1245, internal citation omitted.)

“Although situations may exist where the employee’s decision to resign is unreasonable as a matter of law, ‘[w]hether conditions were so intolerable as to justify a reasonable employee’s decision to resign is normally a question of fact. [Citation.]’ ” (Vasquez v. Franklin Management Real Estate Fund, Inc. (2013) 222 Cal.App.4th 819, 827 [166 Cal.Rptr.3d 242].)
- “In order to establish a constructive discharge, an employee must plead and prove . . . that the employer either intentionally created or knowingly permitted working conditions that were so intolerable or aggravated at the time of the employee’s resignation that a reasonable employer would realize that a reasonable person in the employee’s position would be compelled to resign.” (Turner, supra, 7 Cal.4th at p. 1251.)
- “The conditions giving rise to the resignation must be sufficiently extraordinary and egregious to overcome the normal motivation of a competent, diligent, and reasonable employee to remain on the job to earn a livelihood and to serve his

or her employer. The proper focus is on whether the resignation was coerced, not whether it was simply one rational option for the employee.” (Turner, supra, 7 Cal.4th at p. 1246.)

“In order to amount to a constructive discharge, adverse working conditions must be unusually ‘aggravated’ or amount to a ‘continuous pattern’ before the situation will be deemed intolerable. In general, ‘[s]ingle, trivial, or isolated acts of [misconduct] are insufficient’ to support a constructive discharge claim. Moreover, a poor performance rating or a demotion, even when accompanied by reduction in pay, does not by itself trigger a constructive discharge” (Turner, supra, 7 Cal.4th at p. 1247, footnote and internal citation omitted.)
- “The mere existence of illegal conduct in a workplace does not, without more, render employment conditions intolerable to a reasonable employee.” (Turner, supra, 7 Cal.4th at p. 1254.)
- “[T]he standard by which a constructive discharge is determined is an objective one—the question is ‘whether a reasonable person faced with the allegedly intolerable employer actions or conditions of employment would have no reasonable alternative except to quit.’ ” (Turner, supra, 7 Cal.4th at p. 1248, internal citations omitted.)
- “[U]nder Turner, the proper focus is on the working conditions themselves, not on the plaintiff’s subjective reaction to those conditions.” (Simers v. Los Angeles Times Communications, LLC (2018) 18 Cal.App.5th 1248, 1272 [227 Cal.Rptr.3d

695], original italics.)

“The length of time the plaintiff remained on the job may be one relevant factor in determining the intolerability of employment conditions from the standpoint

of a reasonable person.” (Turner, supra, 7 Cal.4th at p. 1254.)

“[T]here was, as the trial court found, substantial evidence that plaintiff’s age and disability were ‘substantial motivating reason[s]’ for the adverse employment action or actions to which plaintiff was subjected. But the discriminatory motive for plaintiff’s working conditions has no bearing on whether the evidence was sufficient to establish constructive discharge.” (Simers, supra, 18 Cal.App.5th at p. 1271.)

Secondary Sources

3 Witkin, Summary of California Law (11th ed. 2017) Agency and Employment,

§ 235

Chin et al., California Practice Guide: Employment Litigation, Ch. 4-G, Constructive Discharge, ¶¶ 4:405–4:406, 4:409–4:411, 4:421–4:422 (The Rutter Group)

Chin et al., California Practice Guide: Employment Litigation, Ch. 5-(I)B, Wrongful Discharge In Violation Of Public Policy (Tameny Claims), ¶¶ 5:4, 5:45–5:47, 5:50, 5:70, 5:105, 5:115, 5:150, 5:151, 5:170, 5:195, 5:220 (The Rutter Group)

1 Wrongful Employment Termination Practice (Cont.Ed.Bar 2d ed.) Public Policy Violations, §§ 5.45–5.46

4 Wilcox, California Employment Law, Ch. 60, Liability for Wrongful Termination and Discipline, § 60.04 (Matthew Bender)

21 California Forms of Pleading and Practice, Ch. 249, Employment Law: Termination and Discipline, §§ 249.15, 249.50 (Matthew Bender)

10 California Points and Authorities, Ch. 100, Employer and Employee: Wrongful Termination and Discipline, §§ 100.31, 100.32, 100.36–100.38 (Matthew Bender) California Civil Practice: Employment Litigation §§ 6:23–6:25 (Thomson Reuters)

Constructive Discharge in Violation of Public Policy Wrongful Termination of Employment

Constructive Discharge In Violation of Public Policy

Constructive Discharge in Violation of Public Policy, particularly when a plaintiff is required to violate public policy, is a complex and vital area of employment law in California. This concept refers to situations where an employee resigns due to working conditions that are so intolerable that a reasonable person in the employee’s position would have felt compelled to resign. Here’s an in-depth analysis:

Definition and Legal Framework

Constructive Discharge: This occurs when an employee’s resignation is deemed a termination due to the employer’s conduct creating intolerable working conditions.
Violation of Public Policy: The key element here is that the intolerable conditions are such that they require the employee to violate a fundamental public policy.
California Law: In California, the legal basis for constructive discharge claims is grounded in case law and the state’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA).

Essential Factual Allegations

To establish a case for constructive discharge in violation of public policy in California, an employee must demonstrate:

Intolerable Working Conditions: Working conditions that are so difficult or unpleasant that a reasonable person in the employee’s position would feel compelled to resign.
Violation of Public Policy: The working conditions must compel the employee to act against established public policy.
Employer’s Knowledge or Participation: The employer must have either intended for the employee to resign or acted with a reckless disregard of the possibility.
Resignation: The employee must have actually resigned due to these conditions.

Examples of Violations

Forced Participation in Illegal Activities: An employee is pressured to engage in illegal acts, such as fraud, and resigns instead.
Severe Harassment or Discrimination: A situation where an employee faces unbearable harassment or discrimination, violating equal employment opportunity laws.
Retaliation for Whistleblowing: An employee faces such adverse working conditions after reporting illegal activities that resignation becomes the only feasible option.

Legal Consequences

Civil Litigation: Employees can file lawsuits seeking damages for lost wages, emotional distress, and potentially punitive damages.
Burden of Proof: The employee bears the burden of proving that the working conditions were intolerably against public policy.
Potential Remedies: Remedies may include back pay, front pay, compensatory damages, and reinstatement.

Problems That Could Arise

Proving Intolerability and Link to Public Policy: Demonstrating that conditions were intolerable and violated public policy is challenging.
Subjectivity: What is intolerable for one person may not be for another, making the standard somewhat subjective.
At-Will Employment Issues: In California, employees are generally employed at will, complicating the distinction between lawful termination and constructive discharge.
Potential for Employer Defense: Employers might argue that the employee resigned voluntarily or that conditions weren’t intolerable.

Reasoning and Logic

Upholding Ethical Standards: This concept prevents employers from forcing employees into unethical situations.
Protecting Employee Rights: It serves as a safeguard for employees against extreme negative working conditions.
Encouraging Responsible Employer Behavior: It motivates employers to maintain fair and legal working environments.
Challenging Proofs: The subjective nature of “intolerability” and linking it to a violation of public policy necessitates a robust legal framework to assess claims fairly.

Conclusion

In California, the notion of constructive discharge in violation of public policy plays a crucial role in protecting employees from being forced into resigning due to unethical or illegal working conditions. However, the complexities inherent in proving such cases, particularly in relation to the subjective nature of intolerable conditions and their connection to public policy violations, present significant legal challenges. The concept is pivotal in balancing the protection of employees from unethical workplace practices with the realities of at-will employment.

_________________________________

Call 310-312-1100 Now to schedule a time to discuss your matter with Attorney John Michael Jensen.

Additional Information

Constructive Discharge in Violation of Public Policy in the context of wrongful termination and employment law in the state of California is a complex legal concept that arises when an employee is forced to resign from their job due to intolerable working conditions that violate fundamental public policy principles. This doctrine provides a remedy for employees who, while not technically terminated by their employer, effectively experience a forced resignation because they are subjected to conditions that make it impossible or unreasonable for them to continue working.

Overview of Constructive Discharge in Violation of Public Policy:

Definition: Constructive discharge occurs when an employer’s actions or policies create an unbearable working environment for an employee, compelling them to quit. To qualify as a constructive discharge, the working conditions must be so intolerable that a reasonable person in the same situation would also feel compelled to resign.
Violation of Public Policy: For a constructive discharge claim to be valid in California, the employee must demonstrate that the employer’s actions or conditions leading to their resignation violated a fundamental public policy. Public policy includes laws, regulations, and societal norms that protect employees from harm or discrimination. Violations could include retaliation for whistleblowing, harassment, discrimination, or illegal activities on the part of the employer.
Plaintiff Required to Violate Public Policy: In some cases, the plaintiff may argue that they were constructively discharged because they were required by their employer to violate public policy. For example, an employee might allege that their employer demanded they engage in fraudulent or discriminatory practices. The employee’s claim is that they were placed in an impossible situation where they had to choose between following their employer’s directive or obeying the law.

Essential Factual Allegations:

To establish a constructive discharge claim in violation of public policy in California, the plaintiff must generally prove the following elements:

Intolerable Working Conditions: The plaintiff must demonstrate that their working conditions were so severe and intolerable that a reasonable person would find it impossible to continue working under those conditions.
Causation: The plaintiff must show a direct connection between the intolerable working conditions and their resignation. They need to establish that it was the employer’s actions or policies that forced them to quit.
Public Policy Violation: The plaintiff must provide evidence that the employer’s actions or conditions leading to their resignation violated a fundamental public policy. This often involves pointing to specific laws or regulations that were breached.
Plaintiff’s Reasonable Response: The plaintiff must show that their resignation was a reasonable response to the intolerable conditions created by the employer. This means they didn’t quit impulsively but made a rational decision based on the circumstances.

Problems that Could Arise:

Several issues and complexities can arise in constructive discharge cases in California:

Subjective vs. Objective Standard: Determining whether the working conditions were objectively intolerable often involves subjectivity. What one person considers intolerable, another may not. Courts must evaluate the reasonableness of the employee’s response while considering the individual circumstances.
Evidence and Documentation: Proving a constructive discharge claim can be challenging, as it requires strong evidence of intolerable conditions and a violation of public policy. Documentation of incidents, witnesses, and a paper trail can be crucial.
Retaliation: Employers may argue that the employee’s resignation was voluntary and not due to intolerable conditions. They may assert that the employee simply did not like their job or had personal reasons for quitting.
Defining Public Policy: Determining what constitutes a fundamental violation of public policy can be contentious. Courts must carefully assess whether the employer’s actions or policies genuinely contravene established public policy principles.

Examples:

Whistleblower Retaliation: An employee discovers their employer is engaging in fraudulent billing practices. When the employee reports this to management, they are subjected to harassment and threats. Fearing for their job and safety, the employee resigns. In this case, the employee may argue constructive discharge based on being forced to choose between their job and reporting illegal activity.
Discrimination and Harassment: An employee experiences consistent racial discrimination and harassment from coworkers, with no intervention from the employer. The employee resigns due to the hostile work environment and could claim constructive discharge based on a violation of public policy against discrimination.

Conclusion

In conclusion, Constructive Discharge in Violation of Public Policy is a legal concept in California that provides a remedy for employees who are effectively forced to resign due to intolerable working conditions that violate fundamental public policy principles. While it can be a challenging claim to prove, it serves as an important safeguard for employees’ rights and protections in the workplace. Employers must be aware of their legal obligations to maintain a safe and lawful working environment to avoid potential liability for constructive discharge claims.

_______________________________________

Call 310-312-1100 Now to schedule a time to discuss your matter with Attorney John Michael Jensen.

2431. Constructive Discharge in Violation of Public Policy—Plaintiff Required to Violate Public Policy

[Name of plaintiff] claims that [he/she/nonbinary pronoun] was forced to resign rather than commit a violation of public policy. It is a violation of public policy [specify claim in case, e.g., for an employer to require that an employee engage in price fixing]. To establish this claim, [name of plaintiff] must prove all of the following:

That [name of plaintiff] was employed by [name of defendant];
That [name of defendant] required [name of plaintiff] to [specify alleged conduct in violation of public policy, e.g., “engage in price fixing”];
That this requirement was so intolerable that a reasonable person in [name of plaintiff]’s position would have had no reasonable alternative except to resign;
That [name of plaintiff] resigned because of this requirement;
That [name of plaintiff] was harmed; and
That the requirement was a substantial factor in causing [name of plaintiff]’s harm.

New September 2003; Revised June 2014, December 2014, May 2020

Directions for Use

This instruction should be given if a plaintiff claims that the plaintiff’s constructive termination was wrongful because the defendant required the plaintiff to commit an act in violation of public policy. If the plaintiff alleges the plaintiff was subjected to intolerable working conditions that violate public policy, see CACI No. 2432, Constructive Discharge in Violation of Public Policy—Plaintiff Required to Endure Intolerable Conditions for Improper Purpose That Violates Public Policy.

This instruction must be supplemented with CACI No. 3903P, Damages From Employer for Wrongful Discharge (Economic Damage). See also CACI No. 2510, “Constructive Discharge” Explained.

Sources and Authority

“[W]hen an employer’s discharge of an employee violates fundamental principles of public policy, the discharged employee may maintain a tort action and recover damages traditionally available in such actions.” (Tameny v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (1980) 27 Cal.3d 167, 170 [164 Cal.Rptr. 839, 610 P.2d 1330].)
“[A]n employer’s authority over its employees does not include the right to demand that the employee commit a criminal act to further its interests, and an employer may not coerce compliance with such unlawful directions by discharging an employee who refuses to follow such an order. An employer engaging in such conduct violates a basic duty imposed by law upon all employers, and thus an employee who has suffered damages as a result of such discharge may maintain a tort action for wrongful discharge against the employer.” (Tameny, supra, 27 Cal.3d at p. 178.)
“[T]his court established a set of requirements that a policy must satisfy to support a tortious discharge claim. First, the policy must be supported by either constitutional or statutory provisions. Second, the policy must be ‘public’ in the sense that it ‘inures to the benefit of the public’ rather than serving merely the interests of the individual. Third, the policy must have been articulated at the time of the discharge. Fourth, the policy must be ‘fundamental’ and ‘substantial.’ ” (Stevenson v. Superior Court (1997) 16 Cal.4th 880, 889–890 [66

Cal.Rptr.2d 888, 941 P.2d 1157], footnote omitted.)

“[T]he cases in which violations of public policy are found generally fall into four categories: (1) refusing to violate a statute; (2) performing a statutory obligation (3) exercising a statutory right or privilege; and (4) reporting an alleged violation of a statute of public importance.” (Gantt v. Sentry Insurance (1992) 1 Cal.4th 1083, 1090–1091 [4 Cal.Rptr.2d 874, 824 P.2d 680], internal

citations and fn. omitted, overruled on other grounds in Green v. Ralee Engineering Co. (1998) 19 Cal.4th 66, 80, fn. 6 [78 Cal.Rptr.2d 16, 960 P.2d

1046]; accord Stevenson, supra, 16 Cal.4th at p. 889.)

“In addition to statutes and constitutional provisions, valid administrative regulations may also serve as a source of fundamental public policy that impacts on an employer’s right to discharge employees when such regulations implement fundamental public policy found in their enabling statutes.” (D’sa v. Playhut, Inc. (2000) 85 Cal.App.4th 927, 933 [102 Cal.Rptr.2d 495], internal citation omitted.)
“Constructive discharge occurs when the employer’s conduct effectively forces an employee to resign. Although the employee may say, ‘I quit,’ the employment relationship is actually severed involuntarily by the employer’s acts, against the employee’s will. As a result, a constructive discharge is legally regarded as a firing rather than a resignation.” (Turner v. Anheuser-Busch, Inc. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 1238, 1244–1245 [32 Cal.Rptr.2d 223, 876 P.2d 1022], internal citation omitted.)
“Although situations may exist where the employee’s decision to resign is unreasonable as a matter of law, ‘[w]hether conditions were so intolerable as to

justify a reasonable employee’s decision to resign is normally a question of fact. [Citation.]’ ” (Vasquez v. Franklin Management Real Estate Fund, Inc. (2013) 222 Cal.App.4th 819, 827 [166 Cal.Rptr.3d 242].)

“In order to establish a constructive discharge, an employee must plead and prove . . . that the employer either intentionally created or knowingly permitted working conditions that were so intolerable or aggravated at the time of the employee’s resignation that a reasonable employer would realize that a reasonable person in the employee’s position would be compelled to resign.” (Turner, supra, 7 Cal.4th at p. 1251.)
- “The conditions giving rise to the resignation must be sufficiently extraordinary and egregious to overcome the normal motivation of a competent, diligent, and reasonable employee to remain on the job to earn a livelihood and to serve his

or her employer. The proper focus is on whether the resignation was coerced, not whether it was simply one rational option for the employee.” (Turner, supra, 7 Cal.4th at p. 1246.)

“In some circumstances, a single intolerable incident, such as a crime of violence against an employee by an employer, or an employer’s ultimatum that an employee commit a crime, may constitute a constructive discharge. Such misconduct potentially could be found ‘aggravated.’ ” (Turner, supra, 7 Cal.4th at p. 1247, fn. 3.)
- “The mere existence of illegal conduct in a workplace does not, without more, render employment conditions intolerable to a reasonable employee.” (Turner, supra, 7 Cal.4th at p. 1254.)
- “[T]he standard by which a constructive discharge is determined is an objective one—the question is ‘whether a reasonable person faced with the allegedly intolerable employer actions or conditions of employment would have no reasonable alternative except to quit.’ ” (Turner, supra, 7 Cal.4th at p. 1248, internal citations omitted.)
- “[U]nder Turner, the proper focus is on the working conditions themselves, not on the plaintiff’s subjective reaction to those conditions.” (Simers v. Los Angeles Times Communications, LLC (2018) 18 Cal.App.5th 1248, 1272 [227 Cal.Rptr.3d

695], original italics.)

“The length of time the plaintiff remained on the job may be one relevant factor in determining the intolerability of employment conditions from the standpoint of a reasonable person.” (Turner, supra, 7 Cal.4th at p. 1254.)
- “[T]here was, as the trial court found, substantial evidence that plaintiff’s age and disability were ‘substantial motivating reason[s]’ for the adverse employment action or actions to which plaintiff was subjected. But the discriminatory motive for plaintiff’s working conditions has no bearing on whether the evidence was sufficient to establish constructive discharge.” (Simers, supra, 18 Cal.App.5th at p. 1271.)

CACI No. 2431 WRONGFUL TERMINATION

Secondary Sources

3 Witkin, Summary of California Law (11th ed. 2017) Agency and Employment,

§ 235

Chin et al., California Practice Guide: Employment Litigation, Ch. 4-G, Constructive Discharge, ¶¶ 4:405–4:406, 4:409–4:410, 4:421–4:422 (The Rutter Group)

Chin et al., California Practice Guide: Employment Litigation, Ch. 5-A, Wrongful Discharge In Violation Of Public Policy (Tameny Claims), ¶¶ 5:45–5:47, 5:50, 5:70, 5:105, 5:115, 5:150, 5:151, 5:170, 5:195, 5:220 (The Rutter Group)

1 Wrongful Employment Termination Practice (Cont.Ed.Bar 2d ed.) Public Policy Violations, §§ 5.45–5.46

4 Wilcox, California Employment Law, Ch. 60, Liability for Wrongful Termination and Discipline, § 60.04 (Matthew Bender)

21 California Forms of Pleading and Practice, Ch. 249, Employment Law: Termination and Discipline, §§ 249.12, 249.15 (Matthew Bender)

10 California Points and Authorities, Ch. 100, Employer and Employee: Wrongful Termination and Discipline, §§ 100.31, 100.35–100.38 (Matthew Bender) California Civil Practice: Employment Litigation §§ 6:23–6:25

Discrimination. “Discriminate” means a failure to treat all persons equally where no reasonable distinction can be found between those favored and those not favored.

Discrimination Under FEHA Under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act, it is against the law for employers to discriminate against a protected class of employees or job applicants.

A “protected class” refers to a group of people who share similar characteristics and are legally protected from being harassed or discriminated against because of those characteristics. The term often arises in employment discrimination cases where an employer unfairly treats an employee on the basis of, for example, the worker’s age, color or religion.

Protected classes in the State of California include:

race,
religion,
color,
national origin,
ancestry,
physical disability,
mental disability,
medical condition,
genetic information,
marital status,
sex,
gender,
gender identity,
gender expression,
age (age discrimination is discriminating against someone 40 or older),
sexual orientation, and
military and veteran status.

The FEHA applies to (1) public and private employers, (2) labor organizations and affiliations, and (3) employment agencies with 5 or more employees.

If you think that you have been wrongly discriminated against by an employer:

Gather Evidence, Documents, and Records. Write down or record as many aspects of a discriminatory incidents as you can. Retain evidence. Print out emails, performance evaluations, or other evidence that supports your claim.
Prior to filing a lawsuit, you need to file a complaint with the Civil Rights Department or the Equal Opportunity Employment Commission.

Adverse Employment Actions, Wrongful Termination and Retaliation under FEHA

California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act prohibits retaliation which can consist of wrongful termination (such as firing the employee), and similar measures like (1) demotions; (2) pay rate reductions; (3) inferior job assignments; (4) providing inferior benefits; (5) harassment; or (6) similar inappropriate acts or omissions.

Discrimination and Adverse Action Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964

A powerful federal employment law, Title VII prohibits workplace discrimination. Title VII focuses on lost opportunities including termination, lay off, reduction in benefits, reduction in pay rates, failure to promote when qualified, and other adverse employment actions.

However, not all inferior assignments or reduction rise to the level of an actionable adverse employment action:

Retaliation Under Title VII

Retaliation is a lower standard than discrimination under Title VII as the inquiry is whether the employer dissuaded you form making or assisting other to make a claim of discrimination.

Under FEHA, adverse employment actions include (1) placing you on administrative leave, (2) failing or refusing to promote; (3) arbitrary or unjustified negative performance evaluations and review; (4) changing job assignments in a manner that has adverse consequences’ (5) reducing your schedule work hours; and (6) other employer conduct that is reasonably likely to reduce or impairs your prospects to advance or be promoted.

Hostile Workplace

FEA prohibits work environment where pervasive offensive or discriminatory behavior is tolerated or accepted especially when the bad behavior (bullying, harassment, slurs, etc.) interferes or prevents you from fulfilling your job duties.