Appellant co-executor/employee sought review of a decision from the Superior Court of Los Angeles County (California), which dismissed appellant’s complaint against respondent employer for wrongful discharge. It is unknow whether the parties engaged the legal services from a business law lawyer in the transaction.
Overview
Appellant co-executor/employee filed an action against respondent employer on behalf of his father’s estate. Respondent allegedly threatened to terminate appellant’s employment if he did not withdraw the action. Appellant filed a second action against respondent for breach of contract and intentional interference with contractual relations. The trial court dismissed appellant’s second action. The court construed appellant’s allegations as a complaint for wrongful discharge. The court affirmed the dismissal of appellant’s action, holding that appellant had not alleged a cause of action. The court found that appellant was an at-will employee subject to termination at anytime for any reason. The court held that respondent’s threats were not violative of public policy and did not afford appellant a cause of action under the at-will employment doctrine.
Outcome
The court affirmed the dismissal of appellant co-executor/employee’s wrongful discharge action, holding that no public policy exception to the at-will employment doctrine existed against respondent employer for threatening to discharge appellant based on a lawsuit appellant filed against respondent.
Procedural Posture
Appellant employee challenged the judgment from the Superior Court of Riverside County (California), which granted summary judgment in favor of respondent employer, in appellant’s action against respondent for wrongful termination.
Overview
Appellant employee challenged the summary judgment in favor of respondent employer in appellant’s wrongful termination action that involved the theft of a jacket because appellant argued that triable issues of fact existed. The court affirmed the summary judgment and held that appellant was an employee at-will pursuant to Cal. Lab. Code ยง 2922. Respondent presented evidence in its personnel manual and through officials that the employment was terminable at will. Appellant failed to demonstrate there were any triable issues of material fact to support his claim of an implied in fact contract. Appellant argued that he was discharged in violation of public policy for refusing to take a polygraph test. The court held that appellant volunteered twice to take the test and produced no evidence that respondent unlawfully required him to take it as a condition of continued employment. Appellant argued that there were triable issues of fact on his cause for defamation. The court held that appellant voluntarily told third persons about the incident surrounding his termination, and showed no evidence that he was compelled to republish any defamatory information.
Outcome
The summary judgment was affirmed because appellant employee failed to establish that there were any triable issues of material fact relating to his employment at-will, his refusal to take a polygraph test, and his claim of defamation.