Yes. An unspoken agreement for job security can be created by how the company and employee act over time. The normal rule is that a job can be ended at any time for any reason (this is called 'at-will' employment). However, a company's actions can change that rule. In this case, Pugh's 32 years of work, all his promotions, the promises he was given, and the company's own history of not firing people unfairly were enough evidence to suggest there was an unspoken promise. A jury should get to hear this evidence and decide if the company broke that promise.

Yes, it was a mistake because Pugh showed enough signs that there was an unspoken deal about his job security. The company had treated him well for a long time, never really criticized him, and had given him reasons to believe he wouldn't be fired without cause. Now, it's up to the company to explain why they really fired him. The law says that there's a basic expectation of fairness in every job contract, and you can't just be fired for no reason if there's an agreement, even an unspoken one, that you'll only be fired for a good reason.

—established the principle that a long employment with regular promotion establishes a long-term contract.

This presumption "is subject, like any presumption, to contrary evidence. This may take the form of an agreement, express or implied, that the... employment relationship will continue indefinitely, pending the occurrence of some event such as the employer's dissatisfaction with the employee's service or the existence of some `cause'for termination. "

There can be no doubt that "the `implied-in-law covenant of good faith and fair dealing [is] inherent in every [employment] contract

The at-will presumption may be rebutted only by evidence of an express or implied agreement that the employment will terminate only "for cause."

These include " `the personnel policies or practices of the employer, the employee's longevity of service, actions or communications by the employer reflecting assurances of continued employment, and the practices of the industry in which the employee is engaged.'"

"Essentially, they connote `a fair and honest cause or reason, regulated by good faith on the part of the party exercising the power.'[Citation.] Care must be taken, however, not to interfere with the legitimate exercise of managerial discretion.... And where, as here, the employee occupies a sensitive managerial or confidential position, the employer must of necessity be …

—the employer' s at-will authority for implied-in-fact contracts and discharges in violation of public policy, many courts recognized that the employee' s freedom to quit was not equivalent to the employer' s freedom to terminate, noting, for instance, that “this 'freedom' of the employee is largely illusory,” Berube, 771 P. 2d at 1045, or “assures equality to the employee as does …

Although Rohr reportedly "had a policy precluding couples from working in a supervisor/subordinate capacity," 84 the plaintiffs argued that the company did not have a formal policy barring dating among em ployees

—that, as of 2008, the average award for an employee with twenty years of tenure was worth approximately six months' pay

Under the removal statute, a federal court must remand to state court any case over which it would not have had original jurisdiction.

Yes. An implied-in-fact contract limiting an employer's right to terminate an employee at will may arise from the totality of the parties' relationship. The presumption of at-will employment, codified in Labor Code section 2922, is a rule of construction, not of substance, and can be rebutted by contrary evidence. Factors to be considered include the employee's longevity of service, the employer's personnel policies and practices, and actions or communications by the employer reflecting assurances of continued employment. Here, Pugh's 32 years of service, regular promotions, lack of criticism, assurances of job security, and the company's acknowledged policy of not firing for arbitrary reasons were sufficient to create a triable issue of fact that the parties' conduct had formed an implied contract requiring good cause for termination.

Yes, the trial court erred because there was evidence suggesting an implied agreement that Pugh's employment would not be terminated without good cause. This evidence included the employer's policies, Pugh's longevity and promotions, lack of direct criticism, and assurances given to Pugh. The nonsuit was premature as Pugh presented a prima facie case for wrongful termination, and the burden shifts to the employer to provide a legitimate reason for termination. The implied-in-law covenant of good faith and fair dealing is inherent in every employment contract, and the at-will presumption can be rebutted by evidence of an express or implied agreement that the employment will terminate only for cause.

Pugh v. See's Candies, Inc.

Case Podcast

Rule of Law:

The Legal Principle

Facts:

Procedural Posture:

How It Got Here

Issue:

Legal Question at Stake

Opinions:

Majority, Concurrences & Dissents

Analysis:

Why This Case Matters

Gunnerbot