Turner v. Anheuser-Busch, Inc.
876 P.2d 1022, 7 Cal. 4th 1238 (1994)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
To establish a claim for constructive wrongful discharge, an employee must prove that the employer either intentionally created or knowingly permitted working conditions that were so intolerable that a reasonable person would be compelled to resign. The employer must have actual, not merely constructive, knowledge of the intolerable conditions, and there must be a direct causal link between the employer's violation of a fundamental public policy and the employee's coerced resignation.
Facts:
- In January 1984, James M. Turner began working for Anheuser-Busch, Inc. (ABI) at its Riverside wholesale operations division.
- Shortly after starting, Turner reported to his supervisors what he believed were illegal activities by other ABI employees, including violations of state alcohol beverage control laws.
- In May 1985, Turner was reassigned to a different position, but he retained the same salary and level of responsibility.
- Between June 1984 and November 1987, Turner consistently received overall "good" performance evaluations and salary increases, with one exception of a "needs improvement" rating in December 1984.
- On December 28, 1988, four years after his initial complaints, Turner received a "needs improvement" rating, where supervisors alleged his job performance had deteriorated.
- Turner disputed the poor rating and denied that his performance had declined.
- On January 3, 1989, Turner submitted a letter of resignation, effective February 1, 1989.
Procedural Posture:
- James M. Turner filed suit against Anheuser-Busch, Inc. (ABI) and others in the state trial court.
- The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of ABI on Turner's claims for breach of contract and constructive wrongful discharge in violation of public policy.
- Turner, as appellant, appealed to the California Court of Appeal.
- The Court of Appeal affirmed the summary judgment on the contract claim but reversed on the public policy claim, allowing that claim to proceed.
- ABI, as petitioner, appealed the Court of Appeal's reversal to the Supreme Court of California.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
To establish a claim for constructive wrongful discharge in violation of public policy, must an employee show that the employer had actual knowledge of, or intentionally created, working conditions so intolerable that a reasonable person would feel compelled to resign, and that a sufficient causal nexus exists between the employee's protected whistleblowing activity and the adverse conditions?
Opinions:
Majority - Lucas, C. J.
No. To establish a claim for constructive wrongful discharge, an employee must meet a stringent, two-part test. First, the employee must prove a constructive discharge occurred by showing the employer intentionally created or had actual knowledge of working conditions so intolerable that a reasonable person would feel compelled to resign. Second, the employee must establish a wrongful discharge by showing a direct causal nexus between the termination and a violation of fundamental public policy. Here, Turner failed on both parts. The conditions were not legally intolerable; a single poor performance rating after years of good reviews does not meet this high standard, and the long passage of time undermines his claim. Furthermore, Turner failed to show the required nexus between his whistleblowing in 1984 and the negative evaluation in 1988, as the years of positive reviews and raises in between broke any potential causal chain.
Dissenting - Kennard, J.
Yes. The employee should be able to establish his claim at trial. The majority errs by eliminating the 'constructive knowledge' standard, which allows employers to ignore pervasive workplace abuse and claim ignorance as a defense. Federal and state anti-harassment laws correctly use a 'knew or should have known' standard. Furthermore, there is a triable issue of fact as to whether the adverse performance review was the culmination of a retaliatory campaign of harassment. A sophisticated employer might deliberately wait years to retaliate against a whistleblower, and a jury, not a judge on summary judgment, should determine whether a causal nexus exists.
Concurring-in-part-and-dissenting-in-part - Mosk, J.
No. Although the majority's reasoning is flawed, its ultimate judgment is correct. I agree with the dissent that an employer's constructive knowledge of intolerable conditions should be sufficient to establish liability. However, as a matter of law, the conditions of Turner's employment were not so intolerable that a reasonable person would have been compelled to resign. A single 'needs improvement' evaluation after four years of good ones is insufficient to meet this standard. Turner's admission that his resignation was a strategic move in anticipation of litigation further confirms that his resignation was not coerced.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarified and heightened the standard for constructive wrongful discharge claims in California. By rejecting the 'constructive knowledge' standard in favor of requiring 'actual knowledge,' the court made it more difficult for plaintiffs to succeed. This holding protects employers from liability where they are not actually aware of the conditions causing an employee's resignation. The decision also reinforces the importance of a clear and direct causal link between an employee's protected activity and the adverse employment conditions, suggesting that a long delay between the two events, especially when interrupted by positive reviews, can be fatal to a claim.
Unlock the full brief for Turner v. Anheuser-Busch, Inc.