Plaintiff employee appealed from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County (California) sustaining defendant employer’s demurrer and dismissing plaintiff’s first amended complaint in an action for breach of implied contract, wrongful and malicious termination, and breach of an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. Appellant sought counsel from a small business attorney.
Table of Contents
Overview
Defendant employer terminated plaintiff employee after three and one-half years of employment. Plaintiff alleged that defendant breached an implied-in-fact contract not to terminate him without good cause, that his termination was wrongful and malicious, and that defendant had breached an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The trial court sustained defendant’s demurrer as to all causes of action, and the court affirmed. The court noted that Cal. Lab. Code § 2922 provided that employment having no specified term could be terminated at the will of either party, but that application of the statute had been limited pursuant to three theories: wrongful discharge in violation of public policy; breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing; and breach of an implied-in-fact covenant to terminate only for good cause. The court held that plaintiff had failed to identify any statutory right or public policy violated, to allege either lengthy employment or express policies or procedures violated by defendant, or to allege that the parties had agreed, expressly or impliedly, that plaintiff could be terminated only for good cause.
Outcome
The court affirmed the trial court’s dismissal of the complaint because plaintiff employee had failed to allege facts which would support a tort cause of action for wrongful discharge in violation of public policy, a breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, or the breach of an implied-in-fact covenant to terminate only for good cause.
Overview
HOLDINGS: [1]-Even if a franchisor’s area leader who advised franchisees on training and other matters told a franchisee that a supervisor accused of sexual harassment should be terminated, neither that statement nor the existence of a comprehensive operating system could give rise to a reasonable inference that the franchisor had an employer’s traditional right of general control over the franchisee’s day-to-day operations, contrary to the terms of a franchise contract that allocated local personnel issues almost exclusively to the franchisee; [2]-Accordingly, there was no employment relationship within the contemplation of Gov. Code, § 12920.5, to support an employee’s Gov. Code, § 12940, subd. (j)(1), sexual harassment claim against the franchisor, nor could the franchisor be held liable for the supervisor’s alleged misconduct under the common-law respondeat superior rule.
Outcome
Judgment of court of appeal reversed.