Caution:  The following identifies some basic but highly technical  issues. It seeks to summarize a very broad subject in about 500 words. There are many exceptions  and nuances to these rules, so if you think you have an issue, consult your attorney.

In the absence of an employment “contract” to the contrary, employment in California is terminable “at-will” by either the employer or the employee.  This could mean, if taken literally, that an employer can fire an employee any time it wants, if there is no contract.  However, it is far from that simple.

First, is the issue of whether there is a “contract” that restricts the employer’s action.  A formal written agreement is NOT required.  Oral contracts are just as enforceable as written ones, if they can be proven.  Also, contracts can have “implied” terms, based on context, standard practice of the employer, and ‘good faith and fair dealing.’  Consider the following:  Sue is hired at “$30,000 per year,” but without a written agreement.  She had asked for $40,000 but was told “if you do well, you’ll make at least that next year.”  After 9 months, her work is excellent, but she has an irritating personality and cannot get along with at least one key employee.  She is fired and sues for the $7500 she lost for 3 months of the first year and $40,000 for the next that she would have earned.  Was there an express promise for at least one year of employment and an implied promise that if she stayed and performed well, she’d get at least one more year at the higher rate?  Perhaps—but she can certainly get to court.  Her case would be even more compelling if she was induced to leave her previous job to take the new position. “Unexpected” employment contracts can arise orally, from an offer letter, from an employee handbook, and even from an implied promise of continued employment based on longevity and good performance.  Also, if Sue’s employer’s Employee Handbook prescribed procedures for employee reviews and graduated discipline, and then failed to follow those procedures by firing her precipitously, it arguably violated an employment “contract” by doing so.

“Wrongful termination” means termination for reasons that violate contract,  law or public policy. Obviously, termination based on discrimination against protected categories (e.g., Sue is female, 40, African-American), or an employee’s assertion of rights for leave (Sue is pregnant), or assertion of a worker’s compensation claim is wrongful.  Even if Sue is an “at-will” employee, but is fired for complaining about a fire hazard in the store room or because she thinks her employer is cheating its customers,  the firing may be “against public policy” and therefore wrongful.  Firing an employee for any lawful assertion of his/her rights can be legally perilous. 

So, at the least, be certain that every employee gets something in writing (a formal contract, a letter or employment, an employee handbook) which clearly states that employment is “at-will” and can terminated by either employer or employee “with or without just cause at any time” --  unless, of course, employment for a fixed term is intended and clearly spelled out.  And, always be certain that every firing is carefully considered and justifiable based on job performance or other legally supportable employer needs.

(Jay Strauss is a practicing attorney, a former Chamber President and Mayor of Lafayette (2000).  Questions and comments are welcome by email:  jstrauss31@yahoo.com.)

© 2005 Lafayette Chamber of Commerce, All rights reserved.
Site by Nerd4Rent™