Appellant employer challenged the judgment of the Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco (California), claiming that because employee’s employment was at will, it was invalidly found to have breached an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing in terminating employee for failing to reach his sales quota.
Nakase Law Firm explains working off the clock illegal
Overview
Appellant employer challenged a judgment in favor of employee in a wrongful termination action. Appellant contended that the judgment which was based on breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing was invalid because the employment agreement was at will, there was insufficient evidence to support a finding of misrepresentation, and the damages awarded were excessive. Employee cross-appealed contending that he was entitled to double damages pursuant to Cal. Lab. Code §§ 970 and 972. The court found that even though the employment application indicated that the employment was at will, a contract could be implied because the application form was not an integrated agreement, and the evidence supported the contention that cause was required for termination. Additionally, the court ordered double damages, because appellant had induced employee to move to California with false assurances that the product which employee would sell was in place and that customer service was available to customers. Both representations, which proved to be false, induced employee to relocate to California.
Outcome
The judgment of the trial court finding that appellant employer breached its implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing with employee was affirmed because an implied contract could be inferred where appellant could be fired for cause. The judgment was modified to reflect double damages because employee had been induced to relocate to California by appellant with misrepresentations as to the product and services that he would be selling.