Law
Offices of Phillip J. Griego & Associates Law
Offices of Phillip J. Griego & Associates Even at-will employees cannot be terminated in contravention of public policy. For several years, California Courts have long held that a termination in violation of public policy is illegal. But what is a termination in violation of public policy?
A termination violates public policy when an employer’s actions are “injurious to the public or against the public good.”Peterman v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters (1959) 174 Cal.App.2d 184, 188. For a termination to violate public policy, the termination must violate a well established public policy that is delineated in a statute or constitution and that benefits the public at large, not just the employee. The wrongful action need to be strictly tethered to specific statutory or constitutional language, but instead must only “find support in an important public policy based on a statutory or constitutional provision.” Green v. Ralee Engineering Company (1998) 19 Cal.4th 66.
To be actionable, the public policy must also affect the public at large, not simply regulate the relationship between individuals or a single employer and employee. The following are some examples of court rulings in this area:
Employee was terminated for reporting to company officials that consulting fees were being paid to employees who were not performing the services. The court held that this was not a violation of public policy because it was a matter which only concerned the employer. American Computer Corp. v. Superior Court (1989) 213 Cal.App.3d 664.
Employee was terminated for reporting to higher management the fact that coworkers were violating several antitrust, tax, bribery, and drug trafficking laws. The court ruled that this was a violation of public policy, noting that a fundamental public interest is served by keeping a workplace free from these particular crimes because the relevant laws are designed to protect the public at large. The difference between American and this case was the fact that the reported crime in American was against the employer only whereas this case involved a crime affecting the public at large. Collier v. Superior Court (1991) 228 CalApp.3d 1117.
Employee terminated for reporting violations of FAA laws even though only the employer’s customers, not the actual employer, were required to comply with the FAA regulations. The court held that the termination violated public policy. This was the first California Supreme Court decision to hold that a wrongful termination in violation of public policy could be predicated on administrative regulations.Green v. Ralee Engineering Company (1998) 19 Cal.4th 66.
An airline employer fired a maintenance worker when he refused to install a defective airline part. The plaintiff alleged the employer fired him for refusing to violate FAA safety regulations and for refusing to participate in the employer's attempt to cover up those violations. Noting that “ ‘air safety ranks somewhere in pecking order between motherhood and the American flag,’ ” the court concluded the plaintiff's discharge for refusing to violate FAA regulations fell within the public policy exception to at-will employment. Anderson v. Evergreen Intern. Airlines, Inc. (1994) 131 Or.App. 726.
Plaintiff alleged that he was forced to resign from the company after complaining to management about violations of internal operating practices and the company's collective bargaining agreements. Without pointing to a statute or constitutional provision that applied directly to the defendant, the plaintiff made vague allegations that the defendant had violated the federal “Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms laws.” The court held: “Assuming, as we must in a summary judgment posture, that [the plaintiff] could prove these claims at trial, none of them implicates a fundamental public policy embodied in a statute or constitutional provision. The tort of wrongful discharge is not a vehicle for enforcement of an employer’s internal policies or the provisions of its agreements with others. [The plaintiff's] failure to identify a statutory or constitutional policy that would be thwarted by his alleged discharge dooms his cause of action.”Turner v. Anheuser-Busch, Inc. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 1238, 1256-1257
Employee alleged he was terminated because of his age (over 40). The employer had less than five employees, therefore the Fair Employment and Housing Act's (FEHA) ban on age discrimination did not apply. The court held that since the Legislature excluded employers with fewer than five employees from FEHA’s ban on age discrimination, the employee could not circumvent the Legislature’s limitations on age discrimination claims by rephrasing them in terms of a wrongful termination in violation of public policy. Jennings v. Marralle (1994) 8 Cal.4th 121.
Employee was terminated after he supported a coworkers sexual harassment complaint. The court held that since FEHA makes retaliating against an individual unlawful, the employee could state a cause of action under a wrongful termination in violation of public policy theory. Gantt v. Sentry Insurance (1992) 1 Cal.4th 1083.
Employees considering a cause of action for wrongful termination in violation of public policy should be aware that they must file a claim within one year of the termination. The statute of limitations begins to run from the date of termination, not the date of notice of termination.Romano v. Rockwell Internat., Inc. (1996) 14 Cal.4th 479.
This information has been prepared by the Law Offices of Phillip J. Griego & Associates for informational purposes only and is not legal advice. Transmission of the information is not intended to create, and receipt does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. Readers should not act upon this information without seeking professional counsel. The information contained herein is provided only as general information which may or may not reflect the most current legal developments. This information is not provided in the course of an attorney-client relationship and is not intended to constitute legal advice or to substitute for obtaining legal advice from an attorney licensed to practice law. This information is not intended to be advertising and the Law Offices of Phillip J. Griego & Associates does not wish to represent anyone desiring representation based upon viewing this article in a state where dissemination of this information fails to comply with all laws and ethical rules of that state.