100 | 2023 Cal-Peculiarities ©2023 Seyfarth Shaw LLP www.seyfarth.com Appeal concluded that “property” in this context may include the victim’s employment, so the plaintiff could plausibly claim he had been terminated in violation of public policy.191 5.4.5 Wrongful employer actions short of termination California has extended the public policy tort to “wrongful demotion,” permitting an employee to sue for a disciplinary demotion imposed for reasons contrary to public policy.192 The Court of Appeal, in a semi-heroic refusal to yield to the temptation of judicial activism, has declined to create a tort for a wrongful failure to renew an employment contract, reasoning that there is no “termination” of an employment that ends by the terms of the employment contract.193 This employer victory was limited, however, because the Court of Appeal also noted that the employee could pursue a statutory retaliation claim based on the same allegations (a firing in retaliation for raising workplace safety concerns), because the non-renewal, while not a “termination,” could be an “adverse employment action.”194 Moreover, although the facts of this case did not raise the issue, a plaintiff in some other case might pursue a “wrongful termination” claim if the employment contract had an automatic renewal clause or if the employer permitted the employee to work past the contractually set termination date. 5.4.6 Protection of registered sex offenders—Megan’s Law California’s Megan’s Law195 calls for the Department of Justice to publicize, via a website,196 the whereabouts of sex offenders. Megan’s Law is named after a seven-year-old girl who was raped and killed by a known child molester who had moved close to Megan’s family without the family’s knowledge. That tragedy inspired the family to lobby for laws enabling people to know where sex offenders live, so that people may better protect their children. Many states now have a Megan’s Law. The California version forbids firing an employee because the employee’s name appears on the Megan’s Law website, as the law authorizes use of information disclosed pursuant to the law “only to protect a person at risk” and prohibits use of the information for purposes relating to employment.197 Someone aggrieved by a “misuse” of Megan’s Law information may sue for actual damages, punitive damages, and a civil penalty of up to $25,000.198 Employers may still use independent means, such as background checks, to learn whether an applicant or employee is a convicted sex offender.199 Indeed, some employers, such as school districts, must not hire convicted sex offenders, and must perform due diligence to fulfill that duty.200 5.5 Claims for Breach of Contract of Continued Employment 5.5.1 Implied contracts to dismiss only for good cause California nominally recognizes the doctrine of employment at will, which gives both employee and employer the contractual right to end the employment relationship without cause or prior notice.201 California also recognizes, however, that circumstances may create an implied contract that requires the employer to make important employment decisions only for “good cause.” The ease of plaintiff’s proof. California judges routinely invite juries to find an “implied-in-fact contract” of continued employment, by which an employee can be discharged only for “good cause.” The jury may infer such a contract from common incidents of employment, such as longevity, personnel policies or practices, assurances of continued employment, good performance reviews, merit raises, and industry practices.202 The problem with traditional disclaimers. Because California juries can so easily infer an implied contract of continued employment, the presumption of employment at will is, as a practical matter, reversed: juries often will
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTkwMTQ4