Source: https://www.ca-employment-lawyers.com/Wrongful-Termination.htm
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 18:10:12+00:00

Document:
In California, an employment contract of indefinite duration is generally deemed to be at the will of either party (Cal. Lab. Code § 2922). However, the "at will" relationship can be expressly or impliedly modified by the employer. For example, if the employer issues handbooks or other publications to employees which suggest that employees will not terminated or disciplined in accordance with certain procedures, the employee may argue that the employee was wrongfully demoted or terminated if the company fails to follow its own procedures in demoting firing the employee. Similarly, if the employer provides oral assurances of continued employment, the "at will" relationship may found to have been modified, which may require the employer to establish "good cause" prior to terminating the employee. In the legal sense of the phrase as used under California state law, "good cause" means "fair and honest reasons, regulated by good faith on the part of the employer, that are not trivial, arbitrary, or capricious, unrelated to business needs or goals, or pretextual. A reasoned conclusion, in short, supported by substantial evidence gathered through an adequate investigation that includes notice of the claimed misconduct and a chance for the employee to respond." (Cotran v. Rollins Hudig Hall Int'l, Inc. (1998) 17 Cal.4th 93, 108).
California courts have also held that an employer's general right to terminate an "at-will" employee is 'subject to limits imposed by public policy, since otherwise the threat of discharge could be used to coerce employees into committing crimes, concealing wrongdoing, or taking other action harmful to the public weal.' (Collier v. Superior Court (1991) 228 Cal.App.3d 1117, 1121, citing Foley v. Interactive Data Corp. (1988) 47 Cal.3d 654, 655). Thus, an exception to the general at-will employment presumption is made and a tortious wrongful discharge claim will lie where an employer's termination of an employee violates a fundamental public policy, or in other words, where "he or she is discharged for performing an act that public policy would encourage, or for refusing to do something that public policy would condemn." (Gantt v. Sentry Insurance (1992) 1 Cal.4th 1083, 1090; Green v. Ralee Engineering Co. (1998) 19 Cal.4th 66, 79-80; Tameny v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (1980) 27 Cal.3d 167). Therefore, unless the employee has an actual or implied contract with the employer which allows for termination only for cause or other specified reasons, the employer may fire an employee as long as the reasons are not illegal. Sometimes, it takes a skilled attorney to review the facts to determine whether the reasons for termination are illegal.
In proving wrongful termination, a plaintiff must prove either that the termination violated the FEHA or other statute, or that the existence of a "common law" (non-statutory) cause of action as wrongful termination in violation of public policy (see, generally, Tameny v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (1980) 27 Cal.3d 167; Foley v. Interactive Data Corp. (1988) 47 Cal.3d 654, and/or wrongful constructive termination in violation of public policy. (see, Turner v. Anheuser Busch, Inc. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 1238). Such causes of action are in addition to any possible federal causes of action under Title VII, and additionally, the California courts have made it clear that bringing an action under the FEHA does not foreclose bringing an action under the common law based on the same facts; the FEHA and common law actions are complementary, not mutually exclusive. (See eg., Rojo v Kliger, supra, 52 Cal.3d at 73, 82, 89 [holding that the FEHA does not displace any causes of action and remedies that are otherwise available to plaintiffs]).
This case requires us to restate and reaffirm our recent cases explaining what sources may be used to support a Tameny action as an exception to our statutory employment-at-will principle (§ 2922).
In 1984, our Legislature provided "whistleblower" protection in section 1102.5, subdivision (b), stating that an employer may not retaliate against an employee for disclosing a violation of state or federal regulation to a governmental or law enforcement agency. This provision reflects the broad public policy interest in encouraging workplace whistle blowers to report unlawful acts without fearing retaliation. Section 1102.5, subdivision (b), concerns employees who report to public agencies. It does not protect plaintiff, who reported his suspicions directly to his employer. Nonetheless, it does show the Legislature's interest in encouraging employees to report workplace activity that may violate important public policies that the Legislature has stated. The state's whistle blower statute includes administrative regulations as a policy source for reporting an employer's wrongful acts and grants employees protection against retaliatory termination. Thus, our Legislature believes that fundamental public policies embodied in regulations are sufficiently important to justify encouraging employees to challenge employers who ignore those policies.
Our review of the above cases makes clear that wrongful termination cases involving a Tameny cause of action are limited to those claims finding support in an important public policy based on a statutory or constitutional provision. (Stevenson, supra, 16 Cal.4th at pp. 888-890, 66 Cal.Rptr.2d 888, 941 P.2d 1157.) This limitation recognizes an employer's general discretion to discharge an at-will employee without cause under section 2922, and best serves the Legislature's goal to give law-abiding employers broad discretion in making managerial decisions. It also acknowledges the fact that fundamental public policy may be enunciated in administrative regulations that serve the statutory objective. To acknowledge statutorily authorized regulations as evidence of public policy in retaliatory discharge actions is wholly consistent with the rationale for limiting these tort actions set forth in Gantt, supra, 1 Cal.4th at page 1095, 4 Cal.Rptr.2d 874, 824 P.2d 680. [FN6] As noted above, one of the primary reasons for requiring the public policy that gives rise to a wrongful termination action to have "a basis in either constitutional or statutory provisions," is to limit "judicial policymaking" " 'lest [courts] mistake their own predilections for public policy which deserves recognition at law.' " (Ibid.) Contrary to the dissenting opinions, when courts discover public policy in regulations enacted under statutory authority, they are not "mistak [ing] their own predilections for public policy," but rather are recognizing a public policy that the Legislature has formulated and the executive branch has implemented. The question we now address is whether important public safety regulations governing commercial airline safety may provide a basis for declaring a public policy in the context of a retaliatory discharge action.
FN6. To the extent one can read Gantt, supra, 1 Cal.4th at page 1095, 4 Cal.Rptr.2d 874, 824 P.2d 680, to conclude that important administrative regulations implementing fundamental public policies as reflected in their enabling statutes are not "tethered to" legislative enactments, we overrule it. We emphasize, however, that our holding does not include any other potential sources of policy not discussed here or in any of our cases following Gantt.
Wrongful termination cases are fact driven and therefore each case must be carefully and separately analyzed. It is therefore important that the employee keep copies of any letters or phone logs evidence communications with the employer or its management, as well as employee handbooks, and performance evaluations so that a reviewing attorney can better assist in evaluating the potential case.

References: § 2922
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.