knowledge or intent must exist on part of either employer or those persons who effectively represent employer, i.e., its officers, directors, managing agents or supervisory employees.” Plaintiff must show employer actually knew (or intended) the intolerable conditions (as defined by a reasonable person) but a showing of intent is not actually required. 154 – Issue - The Supreme Court of California granted review in Cotran in order to the role of the jury in “clarify litigation alleging breach of an implied contract not to terminate employment except for good or just cause.” Holding/Reasoning The court held that proper inquiry for the jury . . . is [whether] the factual basis on which “[t]he the employer concluded a dischargeable act had been committed [was] reached honestly, after an appropriate investigation and for reasons that that [sic] are not arbitrary or pretextual.” Questions What is the cause” standard when the contract at issue is implied in fact? “good employer must have and honest reasons, regulated by good on the part of “The “fair the employer, that are not trivial, arbitrary or capricious, unrelated to business needs or goals, or pretextual.” Objectively, Not Arbitrary or Pretextual NOT the employee in fact commit the act leading to dismissal? “Did BUT the factual on which the employer concluded a dischargeable act had been “Was committed reached honestly, after an appropriate investigation and for reasons that are not arbitrary and pretextual?” D. – Pg. 161 Facts Right before the Plaintiff was supposed to start (she was leaving a more lucrative job) they fired – her because someone’s wife didn’t like her. Plaintiff was out of work for 1.5 years. Breach of Contract General rule that an at-will employee may be terminated before her first scheduled – day of work and have no cause of action for a breach of contract. There is no breach of contract claim because there was nothing to overcome the at-will presumption.
knowledge or intent must exist on part of either employer or those persons who effectively represent employer, i.e., its officers, directors, managing agents or supervisory employees.” Plaintiff must show employer actually knew (or intended) the intolerable conditions (as defined by a reasonable person) but a showing of intent is not actually required. – 154 Issue - The Supreme Court of California granted review in Cotran in order to “clarify the role of the jury in litigation alleging breach of an implied contract not to terminate employment except for good or just cause.” Holding/Reasoning The court held that “[t]he proper inquiry for the jury . . . is [whether] the factual basis on which the employer concluded a dischargeable act had been committed [was] reached honestly, after an appropriate investigation and for reasons that that [sic] are not arbitrary or pretextual.” Questions What is the “good cause” standard when the contract at issue is implied in fact? “The employer must have “fair and honest reasons, regulated by good on the part of the employer, that are not trivial, arbitrary or capricious, unrelated to business needs or goals, or pretextual.” Objectively, Not Arbitrary or Pretextual NOT “Did the employee in fact commit the act leading to dismissal? BUT “Was the factual on which the employer concluded a dischargeable act had been committed reached honestly, after an appropriate investigation and for reasons that are not arbitrary and pretextual?” D. – Pg. 161 Facts – Right before the Plaintiff was supposed to start (she was leaving a more lucrative job) they fired her because someone’s wife didn’t like her. Plaintiff was out of work for 1.5 years. Breach of Contract – General rule that an at-will employee may be terminated before her first scheduled day of work and have no cause of action for a breach of contract. There is no breach of contract claim because there was nothing to overcome the at-will presumption.
Employment-Law-Sandhu-2015.docx