No Recovery For Employee Who Received Assurance He Would Be Discharged Only For Cause

In Starzynski v. Capital Public Radio, Inc., (2001 WL 302025), the California Court of Appeal affirmed a judgment in a wrongful discharge case against an employee who was discharged despite assurances from his supervisor that he would be discharged only for good cause.

Employee began working for Employer in 1979 and received oral assurances from his supervisor that his employment would be terminated only for good cause. However, in 1991, Employee signed a contract, acknowledging that he was an at-will employee who could be discharged at any time for any cause. The contract further provided that “only the Board of Directors, by affirmative action, has the authority to change or make any agreement contrary to this at-will employment relationship.” After he signed the contract, Employee again received assurances from his supervisor that he would not be discharged “as long as his performance was satisfactory.” After resigning from his employment, allegedly because of intolerable working conditions, Employee filed suit for wrongful and constructive discharge. The trial court granted summary judgment to Employer and Employee appealed.

Pursuant to Labor Code section 2922, an employment relationship of unspecified duration establishes a presumption of at-will employment, which may be overcome by proof of an implied agreement that the employment would be terminated only for just cause. However, an at-will provision in an express written contract, signed by the employee, generally cannot be overcome by proof of an implied contrary understanding.

Applying these rules to Employee’s claim of breach of an implied agreement, the California Court of Appeal focused on the written agreement signed by Employee, which clearly and unambiguously stated that Employee was an at-will employee and that only the Board of Directors, by “affirmative action,” could change the at-will nature of the employment relationship. However, Employee presented no evidence that his supervisor’s assurances constituted affirmative action of the Board of Directors. Therefore, the Court concluded that Employee’s supervisor’s oral assurances did not modify Employee’s written at-will employment agreement.

The Court also rejected Employee’s claim of breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, finding that the covenant of good faith and fair dealing cannot impose terms and conditions beyond those to which the parties actually agreed.

The Court also concluded that even if Employee could show intolerable working conditions that led to him quitting, his claim of constructive discharge must fail because he failed to show a wrongful discharge. As discussed above, Employee failed to show that his employment violated any contractual rights. Moreover, Employee did not claim that his discharge violated public policy.