Opinion ID: 1441972
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Additional Causes of Action for Wrongful Termination

Text: In his brief, plaintiff argued that he can state a cause of action for wrongful termination in violation of fundamental public policy (see Tameny v. Atlantic Richfield Co., supra, 27 Cal.3d 167; Foley v. Interactive Data Corp. (1988) 47 Cal.3d 654 [254 Cal. Rptr. 211, 765 P.2d 373]) despite the exclusive-remedy provisions because such a termination is not a legitimate risk of employment, i.e., it is conduct which falls outside the compensation bargain. At oral argument, however, plaintiff took the position that this court need not reach the other causes of action insofar as this focused statutory remedy [i.e., under section 19683] will provide him relief. For this reason, and because the Court of Appeal has not yet had an opportunity to address these arguments, we will reverse the Court of Appeal's disposition of this cause of action and remand to the Court of Appeal to allow it to determine whether plaintiff may state a claim for wrongful termination in contravention of fundamental public policy. ( Tameny v. Atlantic Richfield Co., supra, 27 Cal.3d 167.) (11) Plaintiff has also attempted to state a cause of action for breach of contract or breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. However, because plaintiff is a civil service employee, he cannot state such a cause of action. [I]t is well settled in California that public employment is not held by contract but by statute and that, insofar as the duration of such employment is concerned, no employee has a vested contractual right to continue in employment beyond the time or contrary to the terms and conditions fixed by law. ( Miller v. State of California (1977) 18 Cal.3d 808, 813-814 [135 Cal. Rptr. 386, 557 P.2d 970]; see also Boren v. State Personnel Board (1951) 37 Cal.2d 634, 641 [234 P.2d 981]; Valenzuela v. State of California (1987) 194 Cal. App.3d 916, 920 [240 Cal. Rptr. 45].) Nor can plaintiff state a cause of action for tortious breach of the implied covenant of good faith, since that cause of action, in the employment context, cannot support an award of tort damages. ( Foley v. Interactive Data Corp., supra, 47 Cal.3d 654.) Accordingly, we will affirm the Court of Appeal's decision with respect to this cause of action. Finally, plaintiff has alleged a cause of action simply for wrongful termination. We affirm the Court of Appeal's disposition with respect to this cause of action because it merely duplicates the additional claims based upon the alleged wrongful termination.