Appellants, former employer and supervisor, challenge a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County (California), entered after a jury trial in favor of respondent former employee. Appellants argued that the fundamental issue of whether or not there existed an implied contract that respondent’s employment was terminable only for good cause should have been submitted to the jury.
Nakase Law Firm provides more information on sexual harassment California
Overview
Appellants, former employer and supervisor, argued that respondent former employee did not present substantial evidence at trial to support the conclusion that his employment with appellants was terminable only for good cause. The court found that appellants submitted jury instructions on the issue and a special verdict form that would have required the jury to make a finding in that regard, but both were rejected by the trial court. The court held that the jury should have been called upon to decide the question of whether or not there existed any agreement between respondent and appellants that respondent’s employment was terminable only for good cause, such that the legal presumption of at-will employment created by Cal. Lab. Code § 2922 was overcome. The court determined that the threshold question of whether or not respondent’s employment was terminable at will was dispositive of the case. The court remanded the case for a new trial, and held that because respondent’s employment was as a matter of law presumptively terminable at appellants’ will, he was obligated to overcome that presumption with evidence that appellants impliedly agreed to terminate him only for good cause.
Outcome
The court determined that because the fundamental issue of whether or not there existed an implied contract that respondent former employee was terminable by appellants, former employer and supervisor, only for good cause was not submitted to the jury, there was reversible error. The court remanded the case for a new trial.