©2023 Seyfarth Shaw LLP www.seyfarth.com 2023 Cal-Peculiarities | 139 156 See, e.g., Stevenson v. Superior Court (Huntington Mem’l Hosp.), 16 Cal. 4th 880, 889-90 (1997) (public policy must have support in constitutional or statutory provision, inure to public benefit rather than merely individual interest, be articulated at the time of employee’s dismissal, and be fundamental and substantial); Foley v. Interactive Data Corp., 47 Cal. 3d 654, 670 n.12 (1988) (no public policy implicated where plaintiff told management that co-worker was suspected of embezzlement at his prior place of employment, as the parties, consistent with public policy, could have expressly agreed that plaintiff was not to reveal co-worker’s background). 157 Green v. Ralee Eng’g Co., 19 Cal. 4th 66, 79 (1988); Turner v. Anheuser-Busch, Inc., 7 Cal. 4th 1238, 1256 n.9 (1994). 158 Lagatree v. Luce, Forward, Hamilton & Scripps, 74 Cal. App. 4th 1105, 1116 (1999) (“The rights underlying Lagatree’s claim are easily identified: an individual’s constitutional rights to a jury trial and a judicial forum for the resolution of disputes. The question thus becomes whether those rights can be waived by agreement. As a general rule, they are subject to waiver”).. 159 Chamber of Commerce of the United States v. Bonta, 62 F.4th 473 (9th Cir. 2023). 160 Williams v. Sacramento River Cats Baseball Club, LLC, 40 Cal. App. 5th 280, 283 (2019) (“Tameny . . . requires ‘the prior existence of an employment relationship’ between the parties upon which to predicate a tort duty of care … Because defendant did not owe [a job applicant] any duty, plaintiff cannot bring a failure to hire claim against defendant in a common law tort action and must instead proceed under the [FEHA].”). 161 See, e.g., Jersey v. John Muir Med. Ctr., 97 Cal. App. 4th 814, 825-27 (2002) (employee sued abusive client; case did not implicate any anti-retaliation provision such as exists in employment discrimination statutes); Becket v. Welton Becket & Assocs., 39 Cal. App. 3d 815, 822 (1974) (no clearly identified constitutional or statutory provision supports public policy favoring free access to courts without fear of retaliation). 162 Carter v. Escondido Union High Sch. Dist., 148 Cal. App. 4th 922, 926 (2007). 163 Dutra v. Mercy Med. Ctr. Mt. Shasta, 209 Cal. App. 4th 750, 756 (2012). 164 See generally Green v. Ralee Eng’g Co., 19 Cal. 4th 66, 76 (1998). 165 Kouff v. Bethlehem-Alameda Shipyard, 90 Cal. App. 2d 322, 324-25 (1949). 166 Tameny v. Atl. Richfield Co., 27 Cal. 3d 167, 176, 178 (1980). 167 Haney v. Aramark Uniform Servs., Inc., 121 Cal. App. 4th 623, 643 (2004) (public policy of discouraging fraud constitutes fundamental California public policy sufficient to support wrongful discharge claim). 168 Petermann v. Teamsters, 174 Cal. App. 2d 184, 188-89 (1959). 169 Silguero v. Creteguard, Inc., 187 Cal. App. 4th 60, 63 (2010) (reinstating wrongful termination claim of sales employee who was fired when her employer was notified by her former employer that she had signed an agreement prohibiting her “from all sales activities for 18 months following” her employment, as this was an noncompete clause invalid under section 16600’s legislative declaration of California’s “settled legislative policy in favor of open competition and employee mobility”). (For discussion of the wrongful termination implications of this section, see § 12.2.) 170 Barbosa v. IMPCO Techs., Inc., 179 Cal. App. 4th 1116, 1123 (2009) (reversing trial court’s nonsuit where employee had dismissed plaintiff for falsifying time records, after plaintiff offered to repay two hours of claimed overtime pay with excuse that he had been “confused” in claiming the pay in the first place). 171 Semore v. Pool, 217 Cal. App. 3d 1087, 1092 (1990) (employee fired for refusing to submit to random drug test may sue for breach of public policy as stated in California constitutional right to privacy). 172 Pettus v. Cole, 49 Cal. App. 4th 402, 414 (1996) (employee fired for refusing to enroll in inpatient program for alcohol treatment may sue for breach of public policy as stated in California Constitution and Civil Code section 56). 173 Rojo v. Kliger, 52 Cal. 3d 65, 89-91 (1990) (employee discriminated against because of protected status may sue for breach of public policy as stated in California Constitution Article I, Section 8: “A person may not be disqualified from entering or pursuing a business, profession, vocation, or employment because of sex, race, creed, color, or national or ethnic origin”). 174 Gelini v. Tishgart, 77 Cal. App. 4th 219 (1999) (where plaintiff’s lawyer wrote employer to request better hours and parental leave, jury could find that the employer, in then firing the plaintiff, violated Labor Code section 923, which entitles employees to select their own bargaining representatives). 175 Ali v. L.A. Focus Publ’n, 112 Cal. App. 4th 1477, 1488 (2003) (employee’s activities privileged under Labor Code section 1101, which forbids employers to prevent employees from engaging in politics and to discriminate because of political affiliation). 176 Nelson v. United Techs., 74 Cal. App. 4th 597, 609-11 (1999) (dismissing employee for taking CFRA leave supports tort claim for wrongful discharge). 177 Grant-Burton v. Covenant Care, Inc., 99 Cal. App. 4th 1361, 1371, 1379-80 (2002) (employee privileged under Labor Code section 232 to disclose wages, a concept that includes bonuses). 178 Hentzel v. Singer Co., 138 Cal. App. 3d 290, 299-300 (1982) (claim based on Labor Code section 6310, forbidding any person to discriminate against any employee for complaining to governmental agency or employer about employee safety or health); see also Lab. Code § 1102.5. 179 Franklin v. The Monadnock Co., 151 Cal. App. 4th 252, 255, 259 (2007) (employers must provide “safe and secure workplace and encourage employees to report credible threats of violence in the workplace”). 180 Green v. Ralee Eng’g, 19 Cal. 4th 66, 71 (1998) (upholding public-policy claim where quality control inspector was fired after complaining about employer’s shipment of defective aircraft parts, even though public policy appears in regulation, not statute). 181 McVeigh v. Recology San Francisco, 213 Cal. App. 4th 443, 448, 471 (2013) (Labor Code “protects employee reports of unlawful activity by third parties such as contractors and employees, as well [as] unlawful activity by an employer”).
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTkwMTQ4