Cotran v. Rollins Hudig Hall International, Inc.
17 Cal.4th 93, 948 P.2d 412, 98 Daily Journal DAR 117 (1998)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In wrongful termination cases based on an implied contract requiring good cause, the employer does not need to prove that the alleged employee misconduct actually occurred. The proper standard is whether the employer had a good faith, objectively reasonable belief that the misconduct occurred, based on substantial evidence gathered through a fair and appropriate investigation.
Facts:
- In 1988, Rollins Hudig Hall International, Inc. (Rollins) hired plaintiff to head its new West Coast international office under an implied agreement that he would not be dismissed except for 'good cause'.
- In March 1993, an employee reported to Rollins's human resources director, Deborah Redmond, that plaintiff was sexually harassing two other employees, Carrie Dolce and Shari Pickett.
- Redmond interviewed both women, who separately confirmed the harassment. They provided written statements accusing plaintiff of exposing himself, masturbating in their presence on multiple occasions, and making obscene telephone calls to their homes.
- Rollins executives met with plaintiff, informed him of the accusations, and explained that an investigation would follow. Plaintiff offered no explanation for the complaints during the meeting.
- Rollins suspended plaintiff and launched a two-week investigation led by EEO compliance manager, Susan Held, who interviewed 21 people, including individuals plaintiff recommended.
- The investigation included re-interviewing Dolce and Pickett, who reiterated their claims, and uncovered another former coworker who accused plaintiff of similar behavior at a previous company.
- Held concluded that it was more likely than not that the harassment had occurred based on her assessment of the accusers' credibility and the results of her investigation.
- After reviewing Held's investigative report and sworn affidavits from the accusers, Rollins's president, Fred Feldman, terminated plaintiff's employment on April 23, 1993.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiff sued Rollins Hudig Hall International, Inc., in a California superior court (trial court) for wrongful termination in breach of an implied contract.
- The trial court instructed the jury that Rollins had the burden to prove that plaintiff actually committed the acts that led to his dismissal.
- The jury returned a special verdict, finding that plaintiff had not engaged in the behavior on which Rollins based the termination, and awarded plaintiff $1.78 million in damages.
- Rollins appealed the judgment to the California Court of Appeal.
- The Court of Appeal reversed the trial court's judgment, holding that the jury was given the wrong legal standard, and ordered a new trial.
- The California Supreme Court granted plaintiff's petition for review to resolve a conflict among the Courts of Appeal on the proper legal standard.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
In a wrongful termination suit arising from an employee's alleged misconduct under an implied contract allowing termination only for good cause, must the employer prove that the misconduct in fact occurred, or is it sufficient for the employer to show that it had a reasonable and good faith belief that the misconduct occurred?
Opinions:
Majority - Brown, J.
No. The proper inquiry for a jury is not whether the employee in fact committed the misconduct, but whether the employer acted in good faith and upon a reasonable belief that good cause for termination existed. The court held that the standard for 'good cause' is comprised of fair and honest reasons, regulated by good faith, that are not trivial, arbitrary, pretextual, or unrelated to business needs. This requires the employer to have a reasoned conclusion supported by substantial evidence gathered through an adequate investigation, which must include notice of the claimed misconduct and a chance for the employee to respond. Requiring an employer to prove the factual allegations in court would improperly intrude on managerial discretion and transform the workplace into an 'adjudicatory arena.' The court disapproved of the contrary holding in Wilkerson v. Wells Fargo Bank, adopting instead the 'middle ground' approach followed by several other state supreme courts which focuses on the objective reasonableness of the employer's factual determination.
Concurring - Mosk, J.
Yes, I agree with the majority's holding. The majority's standard best approximates the likely bargain struck in an implied good cause contract. However, I write separately to clarify that 'substantial evidence' requires more than 'any' evidence and that the employee's opportunity to be heard must be meaningful, not a charade. This standard is also a 'default' rule that applies only in the absence of a more specific contractual definition of good cause. Finally, this holding does not alter the different construction of 'good cause' used by arbitrators under collective bargaining agreements.
Concurring-in-part-and-dissenting-in-part - Kennard, J.
Yes, an employer should be required to prove the misconduct actually occurred, if the parties' contractual intent is unclear. This is a contract dispute, and the jury's role should be to determine what the parties intended by 'good cause.' If intent cannot be ascertained, the default rule should require proof of actual misconduct to protect employees from the devastating consequences of a termination based on false accusations. While this places employers in a difficult position, the solution is not to change the standard of liability but to limit damages. A wrongfully discharged employee who was falsely accused should be entitled to reinstatement with backpay, and only if the employer refuses reinstatement should it be liable for full contract damages.
Analysis:
This decision significantly clarifies the 'good cause' standard in California wrongful termination law, resolving a split among appellate courts in favor of an employer-friendly, process-oriented approach. By shifting the jury's focus from the ultimate truth of the misconduct allegations to the reasonableness of the employer's investigation and conclusion, the court protects employers who act in good faith from being held liable for what a jury might later decide was a factual error. This precedent incentivizes employers to adopt fair and thorough investigative procedures but lowers the overall risk of liability in misconduct-based terminations, potentially making them more willing to retain 'good cause' provisions in employment contracts.
