IMPORTANT
INFORMATION FOR INSURANCE COMPANIES
(Archives - continued)
Bad Faith Wrongful Termination Defined
In Cotran v.
Rollins Hudig Hall Intl., Inc. (1998) 98 CDOS 58, plaintiff, hired under an implied
agreement not to be dismissed except for good cause, was terminated for sexual harassment.
He strongly denied harassing fellow employees and sued his employer for wrongful
termination.
The California
Supreme Court held that the jury was not to decide whether the plaintiff actually harassed
the employees, but whether the factual basis on which the employer concluded a
dischargable act had been committed was reached honestly, after an appropriate
investigation, and for reasons that are not arbitrary or pretextual.
When an employee is
fired for misconduct and sues, the employer's actions are judged by not whether the
misconduct actually occurred, but by whether the employer's response to the allegations of
misconduct were fair, honest, reasonable, and in good faith.
Delbert
Gee, February 1998
Investigation By Attorney Not Privileged
In Wellpoint
Health Networks v. Superior Court (1997) 97 CDOS 8639, the Court of Appeal held that
an investigation by a law firm retained by an employer to investigate allegations of a
hostile work environment by an employee was not protected from discovery by the
attorney-client or attorney work product privileges in a subsequent employment
discrimination action where the employer contended that it took reasonable corrective or
remedial action upon learning of the allegations since the investigation could be evidence
of its reasonableness.
The Court also held
that if the employee contends that the attorney did not perform the investigation as an
attorney, but as part of the employer's normal method of dealing with such allegations,
the employee must also present evidence of the employer's routine assignment of
investigations to its outside counsel.
Delbert
C. Gee, December 1997
Supreme Court Agrees to Hear Guz
v. Bechtel
The California Supreme Court granted
the petition for hearing on the Guz v. Bechtel National case on August 27, 1997. The
Court of Appeal's decision was vacated and the Supreme Court will now take up the issue of
defining what is "at will employment".
Delbert Gee, August 1997
Court Defines At-Will Employment
In Guz v. Bechtel National, Inc.
(97 CDOS 3552), the First Appellate District of the Court of Appeal held that evidence of
long-term employment, consistent promotions, salary increases, and recognition for
outstanding work, coupled with personnel policies indicating that employment should be
terminated only for cause, created a triable issue of fact as to whether a terminated
employee was an at-will employee.
The absence of any of the above evidence is not determinative of at-will employment. The
question of whether employment is at-will is determined by the totality of the
circumstances.
The Court held that the absence of oral assurances of continued employment for good work
alone was not determinative of at-will employment.
Delbert C. Gee, July 1997
Back to Table of Contents
