Alien Employee Who Was Induced To Come To The U.S. Was Properly Awarded Unpaid Wages

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.

The Court reversed the judgment and ordered a new trial on the claims for promissory estoppel, misrepresentation to induce relocation for employment, false promise, intentional misrepresentation and concealment because the special verdict findings were inconsistent. The Court also held the damages awarded appeared to be duplicative.

Employee Entitled To New Trial After Court Improperly Ruled He Was Terminable At Will

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.