©2024 Seyfarth Shaw LLP www.seyfarth.com 2024 Cal-Peculiarities | 139 169 See generally Green v. Ralee Eng’g Co., 19 Cal. 4th 66, 76 (1998). 170 Kouff v. Bethlehem-Alameda Shipyard, 90 Cal. App. 2d 322, 324-25 (1949). 171 Tameny v. Atl. Richfield Co., 27 Cal. 3d 167, 176, 178 (1980). 172 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). 173 Petermann v. Teamsters, 174 Cal. App. 2d 184, 188-89 (1959). 174 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.) 175 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). 176 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). 177 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). 178 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”). 179 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). 180 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). 181 Nelson v. United Techs., 74 Cal. App. 4th 597, 609-11 (1999) (dismissing employee for taking CFRA leave supports tort claim for wrongful discharge). 182 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). 183 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. 184 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”). 185 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). 186 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”). 187 Jie v. Liang Tai Knitwear Co., 89 Cal. App. 4th 654, 662 (2001) (public policy forbids firing employees for complaining to the authorities that the employer was employing undocumented workers in violation of the federal Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986). 188 Vasquez v. Franklin Mgmt. Real Estate Fund, Inc., 222 Cal. App. 4th 819, 831 (2013) (plaintiff could pursue theory that employer violated the Labor Code by assigning him tasks requiring extensive use of his vehicle while refusing to reimburse him for mileage, leading to his constructive discharge in violation of the public policy promoting payment of the minimum wage). 189 Phillips v. Gemini Moving Specialists, 63 Cal. App. 4th 563, 574 (1998) (public policy forbids firing employee for complaining about deduction of wages from paycheck for a towing charge). 190 Siri v. Sutter Home Winery, Inc., 31 Cal. App. 5th 598, 605-06 (2019) (reversing summary judgment for employer; while unobtainable tax returns might strengthen plaintiff’s case, her right to recover turns only on whether she was fired for communicating a reasonable belief that defendant was violating tax law, and that could be shown without invading the implied taxpayer privilege). See also Wadler v. Bio-Rad Labs., Inc., 916 F.3d 1176, 1189-90 (9th Cir. 2019) (upholding $8 million out of $11 million whistleblower verdict for former general counsel; plaintiff need not prove actual violation of law, but rather only that employer fired employee for reporting a reasonably based suspicion of unlawful activity). 191 Steele v. Youthful Offender Parole Bd., 162 Cal. App. 4th 1241, 1255 (2008) (upholding judgment for employee constructively discharged because she was a potential witness in a claim for sexual harassment); Lujan v. Minagar, 124 Cal. App. 4th 1040, 1045-46 (2004) (firing employee who did not personally report suspected workplace safety violations but who was fired in fear she might do so violated Labor Code section 6310, which prohibits dismissal in retaliation for reporting OSHA violations). 192 Steele v. Youthful Offender Parole Bd., 162 Cal. App. 4th 1241, 1255 (2008). 193 Stevenson v. Superior Ct. (Huntington Mem’l Hosp.), 16 Cal. 4th 880, 905 (1997) (employee can assert common law tort for wrongful termination based on public policy forbidding age discrimination, without administrative exhaustion); Nelson v. United Techs., 74 Cal. App. 4th 597, 612 (1999) (discharge for taking CFRA leave supports tort claim for wrongful dismissal); Prue v. Brady Co./San Diego, Inc., 242
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTkwMTQ4