Nelson v. United Technologies
74 Cal.App.4th 597, 88 Cal. Rptr. 2d 239 (1999)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
California law recognizes a tortious wrongful discharge claim based on the public policy underlying the California Family Rights Act (CFRA); however, an employer can obtain summary adjudication on such a claim if the employee fails to raise a triable issue of fact that the employer's articulated non-discriminatory reason for termination was a pretext for discrimination. Furthermore, an implied-in-fact contract requiring termination only for cause can overcome the at-will employment presumption, and good cause for termination requires a fair and honest reason, not a trivial or pretextual one, with a brief, non-deceptive absence for an emergent civic duty while on sick leave potentially not constituting good cause.
Facts:
- Since 1988, Michael A. Nelson was employed as a firefighter at United Technologies Chemical Systems Division (UTC).
- On March 21, 1995, Nelson’s wife, Stacy, suffered a severe concussion after being hit on the back of the head by a vehicle's hatchback door while loading groceries.
- On March 25, 1995, Stacy experienced severe headaches, dizziness, nausea, and fainting spells, prompting Nelson to call 911; Nelson received permission from his supervisor, Lieutenant Dan Villalon, to leave work to meet Stacy.
- Stacy began experiencing epileptic seizures, leading Nelson to inform his supervisors on March 26, 1995, that he would be absent from work on March 27 and March 29, 1995, to care for Stacy and their two-year-old son, which UTC allowed him to do using his accrued sick leave.
- On March 29, 1995, while Nelson was home caring for Stacy, he responded to a pager call from the California Department of Forestry (CDF) for a barn fire nearby, with Stacy's consent and a friend present to watch Stacy and their son; Nelson returned home within an hour after helping to extinguish the fire.
- Upon returning to work on April 5, 1995, Nelson filled in his time card for March 29 but did not deduct the hour he spent fighting the CDF fire; after being asked to explain, Nelson prepared a written statement truthfully explaining what had happened.
- UTC concluded that Nelson had engaged in “time card fraud” because he was “working” while supposed to be caring for Stacy, and immediately terminated Nelson’s employment.
Procedural Posture:
- In 1996, Michael A. Nelson sued United Technologies Chemical Systems Division (UTC) in state trial court, alleging claims for: (1) wrongful termination in violation of the California Family Rights Act (CFRA); (2) wrongful termination in violation of public policy; and (3) wrongful termination in violation of express and implied contracts not to terminate except for cause.
- UTC moved for summary judgment, or alternatively summary adjudication of the issues.
- In 1997, the trial court granted summary adjudication as to Nelson's first two causes of action (CFRA and public policy claims) but denied UTC's motion for summary adjudication as to the third cause of action (implied contract claim).
- Nelson's motion for reconsideration was denied, and his subsequent petition for writ review before the appellate court was summarily denied on November 24, 1997.
- The parties stipulated that the remaining implied contract claim would proceed by way of a general reference before a referee/arbitrator, Justice Nat A. Agliano (retired).
- On April 20, 1998, Justice Agliano issued a statement of decision, finding an implied contract that Nelson could only be terminated for cause, that UTC did not have cause to discharge Nelson, and awarded Nelson $29,800 in damages.
- The trial court adopted Justice Agliano’s decision, entered judgment for Nelson for $29,800, and declared Nelson the prevailing party entitled to costs.
- UTC appealed the trial court's judgment in favor of Nelson, and Nelson appealed the trial court's entry of summary adjudication on his first two causes of action.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
1. Does California law recognize a tortious wrongful discharge claim based on the public policy underlying the California Family Rights Act (CFRA), and, if so, can an employee overcome summary adjudication by demonstrating that an employer's stated reason for termination was a pretext for discrimination? 2. If an implied-in-fact contract exists to terminate an employee only for cause, does briefly volunteering as a firefighter while on paid sick leave to care for a seriously ill spouse constitute sufficient good cause for termination?
Opinions:
Majority - Elia, J.
Yes, California law recognizes a tortious wrongful discharge claim based on the public policy underlying the California Family Rights Act (CFRA), but no, summary adjudication was properly granted in favor of UTC on this claim because Nelson failed to demonstrate that UTC's stated non-discriminatory reason for termination was a pretext for discrimination. Yes, substantial evidence supported the finding of an implied contract requiring termination only for cause, and UTC did not have good cause to terminate Nelson for briefly volunteering as a firefighter while on paid sick leave, thus affirming the judgment for Nelson on that claim. The court first affirmed that the CFRA establishes a fundamental and substantial public policy sufficient to support a wrongful discharge claim, applying the 'Gantt/Stevenson' test. This policy is statutory, benefits the public at large by promoting family stability, was articulated at the time of discharge, and is substantial and fundamental, as evidenced by legislative intent, its inclusion in the FEHA, and parallels with the federal FMLA. The court rejected the argument that CFRA's statutory remedies are exclusive, noting that the FEHA does not preempt common law tort claims. However, UTC articulated a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for firing Nelson – that he worked as a volunteer firefighter while on paid sick leave, which UTC deemed 'time card fraud.' Nelson failed to present admissible evidence that UTC's reason was a pretext for discrimination or that UTC was actually discriminating against him for exercising his CFRA rights. The court found it significant that UTC allowed Nelson to take paid sick leave, which was more than CFRA required. Regarding the implied contract claim, the court found substantial evidence to support the referee's finding that an implied-in-fact contract existed, requiring termination only for cause, based on Nelson's long tenure, good performance reviews, and UTC's HR specialist confirming a 'for cause' policy. The court also affirmed that UTC did not have good cause to terminate Nelson. The referee found Nelson did not intend to deceive, and his brief absence (approximately 45 minutes) to perform an 'emergent civic function' was not inconsistent with his obligation to care for his wife, especially since a friend was present. The $8 stipend was negligible, and not deducting the time was, at most, an honest mistake, not fraud. Finally, the court found the $29,800 damage award to be supported by substantial evidence and correctly calculated, including the pension withdrawal penalty necessitated by living expenses.
Analysis:
This case is highly significant for California employment law, explicitly establishing that the California Family Rights Act (CFRA) provides a public policy basis for a tortious wrongful discharge claim, thereby expanding employee protections beyond statutory remedies. It reinforces the 'Gantt/Stevenson' framework for identifying fundamental public policies. However, the decision simultaneously sets a high bar for employees to survive summary adjudication in public policy/discrimination cases, emphasizing the need to raise a triable issue of fact that the employer's stated non-discriminatory reason is merely a pretext. The ruling also clarifies that ambiguous 'at-will' employment clauses can be overcome by an implied contract for 'good cause' termination, providing a nuanced interpretation of 'good cause' in the context of an employee's actions while on approved leave.
