CA Labor Law: Effective Discharge Cases

An “at will” employee is an employee who agreed to a contract in which they can be fired at any time, for almost any reason. The law generally presumes that employees are employed at will unless they can prove otherwise.

To protect companies for wrongful discharge claims they must do so in a professional and respectful manner. Companies must be sure the employee understand they are being asked to resign and why. For instance, stating the detailed reasons about what the employee did wrong and how long the inappropriate behaviors happened. Insure that the reasons for termination were all in accordance with the supervisory manual made and provided by companies.

However, the ruling in this case and others like it prove that employers can, in fact, be bound by articles written in an employee handbook when disciplining or discharging an employee. An abysmally written handbook can greatly jeopardize an employer’s right to terminate at will. Trends show that courts are increasingly acknowledging enforceable promises in the past employment practices of firms, in employer handbooks and in oral commitments. In addition to including an at-will disclaimer in employee handbooks, employers should also require employees to sign an acknowledgment confirming that they understand and agree to employment-at-will and that at-will employment can at any time be modified by a written agreement. Personnel manuals should explicitly state that the employer reserves the right to terminate employment at will. All written policies should also be free of any language that could be considered as a guarantee of job security. To be sure that these common pitfalls are avoided employers must retain the service of a labor attorney to draft and air-tight employee manual and acknowledgment

In determining whether a genuine issue of the material fact whether a genuine issue of material fact occurs regarding the reasonableness of the requested accommodation, we first examine whether Turners facial presenting that her proposed accommodation is possible. If appellant has made out a prima facie showing, the load then shifts to prove a favorable defense, that the accommodations requested by Turner are unreasonable or would cause an undue hardship on the employer. In contrast, If Turner has satisfied her initial burden, Turners proposed accommodation seems practical. At this time, Hershey rotations policy is new one which had never been required of employees in Turners position. If Turner's proposed accommodation would permit the new rotation program to endure, even though on a modified basis. Under Turners proposed accommodation, each inspector could continue to rotate on the hourly basis, with Turners, herself, rotating only between line 8 and 9. Hershey has not put up with that because this is not practical or

The Third Circuit reversed and remanded the case for trial. The Third Circuit agreed with the District Court that Suders had presented sufficient evidence for a trial to conclude that the supervisors had engaged in a "pattern of sexual harassment that was persuasive and regular." The appeals court disagreed with the District Court and ruled that a constructive discharge, if proved, constitutes a tangible employment action that renders an employer strictly liable and precludes recourse to the Ellerth/Faragher affirmative defense. The Court of Appeals remanded Suders claim for trial. The United State Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve the disagreement on the question whether a constructive discharge brought about by supervisor harassment ranks as a tangible employment action and therefore precludes

The company has the right to terminate an employee as long as the termination does not discriminate or

Constructive discharge is present when a company creates working conditions that are so intolerable that the employee feels they have no option for relief but to resign. Mr. Fleck did not notify his supervisor or any other manager that the new production schedule conflicted with the practice of his religion. If he had, the company would have had an obligation to accommodate his religious holy days and

In a wrongful termination case, the terminated employee must prove more than having been treated unfairly, s/he must be able to prove one or more of his/her legal rights were violated” (Wrongful Termination Website, 2011). Employees in many states are at a disadvantage, possessing few rights, because of the employment at will rule, meaning employers can fire employees at any time and for no reason at all, just like employees can quit any time and for any reason. This makes the definition of wrongful termination extremely narrow.

Probably no. In order to establish a claim for wrongful discharge, Chigurh would have to prove that (1) the employment contract for a specific term does not bar his suit; (2) that he was constructively discharged; and (3) that Moss did not hold good cause in terminating his employment. Here, the “Professional Employment Contract for Specific Term” held an at will provision, making it not a contract for a specific term, which will allow Chigurh to bring suit. Chigurh being moved from executive chef to line chef coupled with a $17,500 pay reduction will likely prove so intolerable that the only reasonable option was to quit, resulting in him being constructively discharged. However, BWO will likely be able to prove Chigurh was terminated for good cause either because employers have more discretion in terminating managerial employees, or for the financial factors associated with not performing the agreement with Wells.

Constructive Discharge occurs when a company has created intolerable conditions for which an employee is to work. Unbearable conditions include but are not limited to discrimination or harassment, and negative

Under California law, typical restrictions on a worker's post-employment activities are void, including those limiting the industry in which an employee can work, and even their efforts to solicit their former employer's customers. There are, however, a few vital restrictions which are legally enforceable, designed to protect a business's investments

Based on facts and legal laws, the judge can look over the evidence and rules and make a decision. The employment-at-will doctrine clearly states that the employer can fire the employee at any time for any reason. There are many exceptions to the employment-at-will

The essence of the public-policy exception is that an employee will have a cognizable claim for wrongful discharge if the discharge of the employee contravenes a clear mandate of public policy. Claims for wrongful discharge under the public-policy exception have included termination of employees for: (1) refusal to participate in illegal activity, (2) the employee's refusal to forsake the performance of an important public duty or obligation, (3) the employee's refusal to forego the exercise of a job-related legal right or privilege, (4) the employee's "whistleblowing" activity or other

A similar case where an employee claimed unlawful termination in comparable circumstances is Megivern v Glacier Hills Incorporated. In this case the employee, Megivern, alleged that her employer, Glacier Hills Inc. unlawfully terminated her due to her pregnancy. The judgement was ultimately given to Glacier Hills Inc and the termination was sustained. Glacier Hills was able to show the reasoning surrounding Megivern’s termination by providing her performance records. Megivern was a less than desirable employee and the timing of her termination was not due to pregnancy (Megivern v. Glacier Hills

A forced resignation is when an employee is required to depart from their position due to some issue caused by their continued employment or may be due to the employer's wishes to dismiss the employee, but the employer may be offering a softened firing. In a high profile position the employee may want to leave before the press is learned more negative information about one's controversial nature.