Gantt v. Sentry Insurance
824 P.2d 680, 4 Cal. Rptr. 2d 874, 1 Cal. 4th 1083 (1992)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An employee terminated in retaliation for refusing to testify untruthfully or for truthfully cooperating with a government agency's investigation has a tort cause of action for wrongful discharge in violation of public policy. Such claims must be based on public policies delineated in constitutional or statutory provisions and are not preempted by the exclusive remedy provisions of the Workers’ Compensation Act.
Facts:
- Sentry Insurance hired Vincent A. Gantt as a sales manager in September 1979.
- A coworker, Joyce Bruno, complained to Gantt that she was being sexually harassed by another manager.
- Gantt reported Bruno's complaints to his supervisor and to the Sentry employee responsible for handling sexual discrimination claims.
- After Bruno was fired, she filed a complaint with the Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH).
- During Sentry's internal investigation, its house counsel, Caroline Fribance, pressured Gantt to retract his claim that he had previously reported Bruno's complaints to management.
- Gantt met secretly with the DFEH investigator before his official interview to truthfully report the facts, expressing fear of retaliation from Sentry.
- During his official DFEH interview, Gantt provided testimony that was unfavorable to Sentry. Afterwards, Fribance suggested to the investigator that Gantt himself should be investigated.
- Less than two months later, Sentry demoted Gantt from sales manager to sales representative and withheld a "book" of existing accounts necessary for his success.
- Due to the demotion and hostile work conditions, Gantt experienced health problems and was ultimately forced to resign, constituting a constructive discharge.
Procedural Posture:
- Vincent A. Gantt sued Sentry Insurance and two individual managers in state trial court for causes including tortious discharge in violation of public policy.
- A jury returned a verdict in favor of Gantt for $1.34 million.
- Sentry Insurance and the individual defendants (appellants) appealed to the California Court of Appeal.
- The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment against Sentry, finding a valid claim for retaliation based on Gantt's refusal to testify untruthfully, but reversed the judgment against the individual defendants.
- Sentry Insurance (petitioner) sought review from the Supreme Court of California, which granted the petition.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does an employee who is constructively discharged for truthfully cooperating with a government agency's investigation into a coworker's sexual harassment claim have a valid cause of action for tortious discharge in violation of public policy, and if so, is such an action barred by the exclusive remedy provisions of the Workers’ Compensation Act?
Opinions:
Majority - Arabian, J.
Yes, terminating an employee for truthfully participating in a government investigation constitutes a tortious discharge in violation of public policy, and no, this action is not barred by the Workers' Compensation Act. A claim for wrongful discharge in violation of public policy must be based on a fundamental policy delineated in a constitutional or statutory provision. Here, the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) makes it a misdemeanor to willfully interfere with an investigation by the Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH). Sentry's actions in pressuring Gantt to withhold testimony and retaliating against him for testifying truthfully contravened this clear statutory public policy, analogous to firing an employee for refusing to commit perjury as in Petermann. Furthermore, the claim is not preempted by the Workers' Compensation Act because such a retaliatory discharge violates a fundamental duty imposed by law on all employers and cannot be considered a 'normal part of the employment relationship' or a risk reasonably encompassed within the 'compensation bargain.'
Concurring - Kennard, J.
Yes, Gantt's employer violated public policy when it constructively discharged him, and his recovery is not barred by workers' compensation. However, the majority is wrong to declare that all future public policy claims must be based only on policies expressed in constitutional or statutory provisions. This issue was not raised by the facts of this case, as Gantt's claim is based on a statute, making the majority's broad new rule unnecessary dicta. This restrictive rule unwisely forecloses valid claims based on other legitimate sources of public policy, such as judicial decisions or the common law, and ignores the principle that law is best developed on a case-by-case basis.
Analysis:
This decision significantly clarified and narrowed the public policy exception to at-will employment in California by requiring that the policy be "tethered" to a specific constitutional or statutory provision. This provides a more predictable and constrained standard, moving away from broader, court-defined sources of public policy recognized in some other jurisdictions. The ruling also solidified the viability of tort remedies for such violations by holding that retaliatory discharges against fundamental public policy fall outside the workers' compensation system's 'compensation bargain.' Consequently, while it limits the potential sources for future claims, it preserves powerful remedies for claims that meet the new, stricter standard.
