California Employment Law Update : Labor and Employment Lawyers & Attorneys : Proskauer Rose Law Firm : Wage & Hour Laws, Disability, Workplace Safety

Singh v. Southland Stone, U.S.A., Inc., 2010 WL 2613089 (Cal. Ct. App. 2010)

Gurpreet Singh moved from India to California to work as a general manager for Southland Stone. After Singh resigned and returned to India, he filed suit against Southland and its president (Ravinder S. Johar), alleging various contract and tort claims. The jury awarded Singh more than $980,000 for past and future noneconomic damages, economic damages, unpaid wages and punitive damages. The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment in part (as to the denial of the breach of contract claim and the award of $6,800 in wages whose payment defendants conditioned upon Singh’s signing a release), but otherwise reversed the judgment. The Court reversed the judgment on the claim for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing (because Singh was employed at will) and the claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress (because it was barred by the exclusive remedy of the Workers’ Compensation Act) and ordered the trial court to enter judgment for defendants on those claims.

• Email This
• Print

Stillwell v. The Salvation Army, 167 Cal. App. 4th 360 (2008)

Arthur Stillwell sued The Salvation Army (“TSA”) for breach of an implied agreement to terminate his employment only for good cause. The jury found that TSA breached an implied agreement with Stillwell and awarded him more than $155,000 – but it also determined that Stillwell had executed an enforceable agreement that rendered his employment terminable at will. Both parties conceded on appeal that the jury’s verdicts were inconsistent. The Court of Appeal held the trial court had erred in choosing as a matter of law one of the jury’s inconsistent verdicts over the other and ordered, instead, that a new trial be held.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks

Bernard v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 2007 WL 4465075 (Cal. Ct. App. Dec. 21, 2007)

William Bernard had an insurance agency, representing certain State Farm insurance companies. Bernard alleged he was forced to resign when he was unable to carry out the physical requirements of the sales program following injuries he sustained in a car collision. Among other things, Bernard sued State Farm for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing based on certain misrepresentations that allegedly had been made by his supervisors. The agency agreement in question provided that “You or State Farm have the right to terminate this Agreement by written notice delivered to the other or mailed to the other’s last known address.” The Court of Appeal held that this provision rendered Bernard’s employment terminable at will – even in the absence of more precise language. Therefore, Bernard’s claim for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing had been properly dismissed by the trial court.

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks