Appellant, Defendants and Respondents. Reversed, in part; remanded, in part; and affirmed, in part. Post, and William S. Jue, for Plaintiff Nosrat Khajavi.
Superior Court of Sacramento County, No. Opinion by Sims, Acting P. Biegler and Jessee S. Hamilton for Defendant and Respondent. I understand further that only the Board of Directors, by affirmative action, has the authority to change or make any agreement contrary to this at-will employment relationship.
Plaintiff resigned from employment in January He later filed a complaint against CPR alleging wrongful discharge on the theories that CPR violated an implied contract of employment, that CPR violated an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and that plaintiff was constructively discharged when he resigned his employment because of intolerable working conditions.
The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of CPR, from which plaintiff appeals. We shall therefore affirm the judgment. Standard of Review  Summary judgment is properly granted when there is no triable issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
Once the moving party defendant meets its burden, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to show a triable issue of material fact exists.
Romano, supra, at pp. McFerren 35 Cal. Breach of Implied Contract [2a] Plaintiff claims a triable issue of material fact exists with respect to his claim for breach of implied contract because, even though he signed the document acknowledging his employment was at will, he received verbal assurances from his supervisor, Phil Corriveau, that his employment was secure as long as his performance remained satisfactory.
Labor Code section provides: Employment for a specified term means an employment for a period greater than one month. A fortiori, the employer may act peremptorily, arbitrarily, or inconsistently, without providing specific protections such as prior warning, fair procedures, objective evaluation, or preferential reassignment.
This presumption may be overcome by evidence of an implied agreement that the employment would [88 Cal. Wells Fargo Realty Advisors Cal. The California Supreme Court recently observed in dictum that most California cases "have held that an at-will provision in an express written agreement, signed by the employee, cannot be overcome by proof of an implied contrary understanding.
We shall apply this latter rule here. In his briefs, plaintiff makes no claim that the assurances of his supervisor constituted "affirmative action" of the board of directors. Plaintiff says the rule of Shapiro v.
Wells Fargo Realty Advisors, supra, Cal. He cites Wagner [88 Cal. Glendale Adventist Medical Center Cal. Plaintiff therefore seeks to rely on his declaration wherein he states that three days after he signed the acknowledgement of at-will status, he "again became concerned" and approached his supervisor, Corriveau, who "again assured" plaintiff that his employment could be terminated only for cause.
Wagner is distinguishable because in that case the employment agreement did not limit the way in which the at-will employment agreement could be modified. Our conclusion that plaintiff failed to show triable issues concerning breach of implied contract is therefore fatal to his claim for breach of the implied convenant of good faith and fair dealing.
The covenant of good faith and fair dealing cannot impose substantive terms and conditions beyond those to which the parties actually agreed. Constructive Discharge Plaintiff contends the trial court erred in concluding he had failed to show working conditions so intolerable as to support a constructive termination claim.
For reasons that follow, we shall conclude plaintiff has no viable claim for wrongful discharge based on constructive discharge. As a result, a constructive discharge is legally regarded as a firing rather than a resignation.
The conditions giving rise to the resignation must be sufficiently extraordinary and egregious to overcome the normal motivation of a competent, diligent, and reasonable employee to remain on the job to earn a livelihood and to serve his or her employer.
The standard is an objective one. Even after establishing constructive discharge, an employee must independently prove a breach of contract or tort in connection with employment termination in order to obtain damages for wrongful discharge.
In the absence of an express or implied agreement to the contrary, an employment relationship without a fixed term is presumed to be validly terminable at the will of either party, employer or employee, at any time. As we have recounted, his employment was at will.
As such, his employment could be terminated "for any or no reason. His employer, CPR, was entitled to act "peremptorily, arbitrarily, or inconsistently.
We therefore hold that an at-will employee has no contractual claim for wrongful discharge based on constructive discharge on account of intolerable working conditions. Nor does plaintiff have a tort claim.
Such a tort claim for wrongful discharge requires the employee to show that he or she has been terminated for a reason that contravenes fundamental public policy as expressed in a constitutional or statutory provision.View Essay - Management 10 MIDTERM Research kaja-net.com from MGMT 10 at California State University, Sacramento.
1 Professor Biegler Management 10 Spring Midterm 2, Research paper CHARLES. Find Study Resources. Research paper CHARLES STARZYNSKI, Plaintiff and Appellant, v%(6).
kaja-net.com2d () 88 kaja-net.com4th 33 Charles STARZYNSKI, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. CAPITAL PUBLIC RADIO, INC., Defendant and Respondent. Charles STARZYNSKI, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. CAPITAL PUBLIC RADIO, INC., Defendant and Respondent. Beginning in , plaintiff Charles Starzynski was employed as program director for Sacramento radio stations KXPR and [88 Cal.
App. 4th 36] KXJZ, which are owned and operated by defendant Capital Public Radio, Inc. (CPR). Appellant and Respondent. vs. FEATHER RIVER ANESTHESIA MEDICAL GROUP: Appellant.
Defendants and Respondents. Entreaty from the judgement of the Superior Court of Sutter County, Perry Parker, Judge, Reversed, in portion; remanded, in portion; and affirmed, in portion.
Beginning in , plaintiff Charles Starzynski was employed as program director for Sacramento radio stations KXPR and [88 Cal. App. 4th 36] KXJZ, which are owned and operated by defendant Capital Public Radio, Inc. (CPR).