©2024 Seyfarth Shaw LLP www.seyfarth.com 2024 Cal-Peculiarities | 141 219 See, e.g., Comeaux v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Co., 915 F.2d 1264, 1272-73 & n.9 (9th Cir. 1990) (breach of implied covenant may occur where employer made an offer of employment of at-will employment, without stating that the offer was contingent on a credit check, and then, relying on the outcome of that check, revoked the offer before the new hire started work); Sheppard v. Morgan Keegan & Co., 218 Cal. App. 3d 61, 67 (1990) (reversing summary judgment against contractual wrongful termination claim of individual who, in reliance on job offer, moved from California to Tennessee to take the job, only to be denied employment after he made pre-employment visit to office dressed in jeans and T-shirt; claim sustainable notwithstanding at-will employment status, as doctrine of promissory estoppel gave plaintiff right to assume he would have chance to perform job to the good-faith satisfaction of his employer). 220 Guz v. Bechtel Nat’l Corp., Inc., 24 Cal. 4th 317, 352-53 (2000) (summary judgment affirmed as to implied covenant claim: “To the extent Guz’s implied covenant cause of action seeks to impose limits on Bechtel’s termination rights beyond those to which the parties actually agreed, the claim is invalid. To the extent the implied covenant claim seeks simply to invoke terms to which the parties did agree, it is superfluous”). 221 See, e.g., M.F. v. Pac. Pearl Hotel Mgmt., LLC, 16 Cal. App. 5th 693, 700 (2017) (workers’ compensation act did not preempt FEHA claim by hotel housekeeper that hotel was liable for negligently failing to prevent her rape by a drunken trespasser whose dangerous presence should have been known to hotel management; “workers’ compensation exclusivity doctrine is inapplicable to claims under the FEHA”). 222 See, e.g., Cabesuela v. Browning-Ferris Indus., 68 Cal. App. 4th 101, 112-13 (1998) (emotional distress claim based on violation of fundamental public policy not preempted by WCA); Leibert v. Transworld Sys., 32 Cal. App. 4th 1693 (1995) (emotional distress claim based on same conduct as public policy claim lies outside exclusive remedy provision); Accardi v. Superior Ct. (City of Simi Valley), 17 Cal. App. 4th 341, 353 (1993) (WCA does not bar claim for infliction of emotional distress based on conduct that violates public policy). 223 Id. 224 See, e.g., Miklosy v. Regents of Univ. of Cal., 44 Cal. 4th 876, 902-03 (2008) (WCA preempts emotional distress claims arising from “risks inherent” in the normal employment relationship; “whistle blower retaliation” is risk inherent in normal employment relationship); Ferretti v. Pfizer, Inc., 2012 WL 3638541, at *11 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 22, 2012) (wrongful termination plaintiff cannot use Cabesuela to support claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress claim, in view of Miklosy); Yau v. Margarita Ford, Inc., 229 Cal. App. 4th 144, 161-62 (2014) (upholding dismissal of IIED claim brought against individual defendant who allegedly gave illegal directions regarding fraudulent warranty claims; after Miklosy, violation of public policy does not support exception to WCA exclusivity); Vasquez v. Franklin Mgmt. Real Estate Fund, Inc., 222 Cal. App. 4th 819, 832-33 (2013) (Cabesuela and Leibert have been limited); Singh v. Southland Stone, U.S.A., Inc., 186 Cal. App. 4th 338, 366–67 (2010) (WCA exclusivity barred claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress claim where employer “berated and humiliated [plaintiff], criticized his job performance, and insulted him with profanities on a regular basis”; “employer’s intentional misconduct in connection with actions that are a normal part of the employment relationship … resulting in emotional injury is considered to be encompassed within the compensation bargain, even if the misconduct could be characterized as ‘manifestly unfair, outrageous, harassment, or intended to cause emotional disturbance.’”‘). 225 See Light v. Dep’t of Parks & Recreation, 14 Cal. App. 5th 75, 101 (2017) (“[W]e are unwilling to abandon the long-standing view that unlawful discrimination and retaliation in violation of FEHA falls outside the compensation bargain and therefore claims of intentional infliction of emotional distress based on such discrimination and retaliation are not subject to workers’ compensation exclusivity.”). 226 Id. at 81. 227 Id. at 101. 228 Id. at 82-85. 229 Lab. Code section 4558(b) provides: “An employee, or his or her dependents in the event of the employee’s death, may bring an action at law for damages against the employer where the employee’s injury or death is proximately caused by the employer’s knowing removal of, or knowing failure to install, a point of operation guard on a power press, and this removal or failure to install is specifically authorized by the employer under conditions known by the employer to create a probability of serious injury or death.” 230 Santos v. Crenshaw Mfg., Inc., 55 Cal. App. 5th 39 (2020). 231 Id. at 42. 232 Id. at 46. 233 Id. at 54-56. 234 Reynaud v. Technicolor Creative Servs. USA, Inc., 46 Cal. App. 5th 1007 (2020). 235 Id. at 1011-14. 236 Id. at 1014. 237 Id. at 1021-23. 238 Id. 239 Id. at 1023. 240 See e.g., Stevenson v. Superior Ct. (Huntington Mem’l Hosp.), 16 Cal. 4th 880, 885 (1997) (FEHA does not preempt any common law tort claims, so that employee may bring claim for wrongful termination in violation of the public policy against age discrimination even though FEHA already provides a statutory remedy for age discrimination); see also Nelson v. United Techs., 74 Cal. App. 4th 597, 611-12 (1999) (fired employee may sue for wrongful termination in violation of public policy expressed in California Family Rights Act, even though CFRA itself provides remedies for violations); Prue v. Brady Co./San Diego, Inc., 242 Cal. App. 4th 1367, 1383 (2015) (employee may assert public-policy tort claim for wrongful termination in violation of public policy aginst disability discrimination, without meeting FEHA’s one-year statute of limitations). 241 Civ. Proc. Code § 437c(a)(2). 242 Nazir v. United Airlines, Inc., 178 Cal. App. 4th 243 (2009). 243 Id. at 248.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTkwMTQ4