Appellant employee sought relief of a judgment from the Superior Court of San Bernadino County (California), which sustained respondent employer's demurrer without leave to amend appellant's complaint for wrongful termination in violation of Cal. Const. art I, § 1.
Overview: What are the waiting time penalties california?
Appellant employee sought relief from a judgment sustaining respondent employer's demurrer to the complaint without leave to amend. The court affirmed the decision in part, but directed leave to amend on remand for those parts it reversed. The court held that appellant properly invoked the public policy exception to at-will termination by asserting a privacy violation under Cal. Const. art I, § 1, which applied to private employers. The trial court erred because the intrusiveness of a pupillary reaction test and the balance of privacy interests with the need to regulate work conduct could not be decided on demurrer. While appellant should have the opportunity to amend his claims of express and implied contract, dismissal of the fraud and misrepresentation claims was proper because no facts could be asserted in their support. The demurrer as to tortious breach of contract was proper because tort remedies were not available for breach of the implied covenant in employment contracts. Appellant's claims for emotional distress were properly dismissed because the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board had exclusive jurisdiction and respondent had no duty not to discharge appellant.
The court affirmed the trial court's judgment sustaining defendant employer's demurrer as to appellant employee's claims of fraud, misrepresentation, tortious breach of contract, and emotional distress. The court reversed and remanded the decision as to appellant employee's claims based on violation of his constitutional privacy rights, as well as his contractual causes of action, with instructions to allow appellant leave to amend his complaint.
Appellants, an insured and her attorney, sought review of the judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County (California), which struck punitive damages and attorney fees awarded by the jury and ordered sanctions for bringing a bad faith action against appellee insurer.
Appellant insured brought a bad faith action against appellee insurer on an auto theft deterrent insurance policy after her car was stolen and appellee failed to pay as promised in the policy. The trial court rendered judgment on the award of damages by the jury, but struck the punitive damages and attorney fees and ordered sanctions against appellant and her attorney for bringing the bad faith action. On appeal, the court reversed and found that the trial court had improperly substituted its judgment that appellee had acted reasonably in denying appellant's claim for the jury's judgment that appellee had acted in bad faith because there was sufficient evidence to support the jury's finding and award of punitive damages. The court further found that the attorney fees were properly awarded because they had been reasonably incurred and stipulated to by the parties before trial, and that sanctions were improper because there was no evidence that appellant attorneys acted in bad faith in bringing the action.
The court reversed the judgment which struck punitive damages and attorney fees and ordered sanctions against appellants, an insured and her attorneys, because there was sufficient evidence to support the jury's findings and award and because there was no evidence to suggest appellant attorneys acted in bad faith in bringing the action.