Constructive Discharge In Violation of Public Policy

Constructive Discharge in Violation of Public Policy, particularly when a plaintiff is required to violate public policy, is a complex and vital area of employment law in California. This concept refers to situations where an employee resigns due to working conditions that are so intolerable that a reasonable person in the employee’s position would have felt compelled to resign. Here’s an in-depth analysis:

Definition and Legal Framework

• Constructive Discharge: This occurs when an employee’s resignation is deemed a termination due to the employer’s conduct creating intolerable working conditions.
• Violation of Public Policy: The key element here is that the intolerable conditions are such that they require the employee to violate a fundamental public policy.
• California Law: In California, the legal basis for constructive discharge claims is grounded in case law and the state’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA).

Essential Factual Allegations

To establish a case for constructive discharge in violation of public policy in California, an employee must demonstrate:

1. Intolerable Working Conditions: Working conditions that are so difficult or unpleasant that a reasonable person in the employee’s position would feel compelled to resign.
2. Violation of Public Policy: The working conditions must compel the employee to act against established public policy.
3. Employer’s Knowledge or Participation: The employer must have either intended for the employee to resign or acted with a reckless disregard of the possibility.
4. Resignation: The employee must have actually resigned due to these conditions.

Examples of Violations

• Forced Participation in Illegal Activities: An employee is pressured to engage in illegal acts, such as fraud, and resigns instead.
• Severe Harassment or Discrimination: A situation where an employee faces unbearable harassment or discrimination, violating equal employment opportunity laws.
• Retaliation for Whistleblowing: An employee faces such adverse working conditions after reporting illegal activities that resignation becomes the only feasible option.

Legal Consequences

• Civil Litigation: Employees can file lawsuits seeking damages for lost wages, emotional distress, and potentially punitive damages.
• Burden of Proof: The employee bears the burden of proving that the working conditions were intolerably against public policy.
• Potential Remedies: Remedies may include back pay, front pay, compensatory damages, and reinstatement.

Problems That Could Arise

• Proving Intolerability and Link to Public Policy: Demonstrating that conditions were intolerable and violated public policy is challenging.
• Subjectivity: What is intolerable for one person may not be for another, making the standard somewhat subjective.
• At-Will Employment Issues: In California, employees are generally employed at will, complicating the distinction between lawful termination and constructive discharge.
• Potential for Employer Defense: Employers might argue that the employee resigned voluntarily or that conditions weren’t intolerable.

Reasoning and Logic

1. Upholding Ethical Standards: This concept prevents employers from forcing employees into unethical situations.
2. Protecting Employee Rights: It serves as a safeguard for employees against extreme negative working conditions.
3. Encouraging Responsible Employer Behavior: It motivates employers to maintain fair and legal working environments.
4. Challenging Proofs: The subjective nature of “intolerability” and linking it to a violation of public policy necessitates a robust legal framework to assess claims fairly.

Conclusion

In California, the notion of constructive discharge in violation of public policy plays a crucial role in protecting employees from being forced into resigning due to unethical or illegal working conditions. However, the complexities inherent in proving such cases, particularly in relation to the subjective nature of intolerable conditions and their connection to public policy violations, present significant legal challenges. The concept is pivotal in balancing the protection of employees from unethical workplace practices with the realities of at-will employment.

_________________________________

Call 310-312-1100 Now to schedule a time to discuss your matter with Attorney John Michael Jensen.

Additional Information

Constructive Discharge in Violation of Public Policy in the context of wrongful termination and employment law in the state of California is a complex legal concept that arises when an employee is forced to resign from their job due to intolerable working conditions that violate fundamental public policy principles. This doctrine provides a remedy for employees who, while not technically terminated by their employer, effectively experience a forced resignation because they are subjected to conditions that make it impossible or unreasonable for them to continue working.

Overview of Constructive Discharge in Violation of Public Policy:

1. Definition: Constructive discharge occurs when an employer’s actions or policies create an unbearable working environment for an employee, compelling them to quit. To qualify as a constructive discharge, the working conditions must be so intolerable that a reasonable person in the same situation would also feel compelled to resign.
2. Violation of Public Policy: For a constructive discharge claim to be valid in California, the employee must demonstrate that the employer’s actions or conditions leading to their resignation violated a fundamental public policy. Public policy includes laws, regulations, and societal norms that protect employees from harm or discrimination. Violations could include retaliation for whistleblowing, harassment, discrimination, or illegal activities on the part of the employer.
3. Plaintiff Required to Violate Public Policy: In some cases, the plaintiff may argue that they were constructively discharged because they were required by their employer to violate public policy. For example, an employee might allege that their employer demanded they engage in fraudulent or discriminatory practices. The employee’s claim is that they were placed in an impossible situation where they had to choose between following their employer’s directive or obeying the law.

Essential Factual Allegations:

To establish a constructive discharge claim in violation of public policy in California, the plaintiff must generally prove the following elements:

1. Intolerable Working Conditions: The plaintiff must demonstrate that their working conditions were so severe and intolerable that a reasonable person would find it impossible to continue working under those conditions.
2. Causation: The plaintiff must show a direct connection between the intolerable working conditions and their resignation. They need to establish that it was the employer’s actions or policies that forced them to quit.
3. Public Policy Violation: The plaintiff must provide evidence that the employer’s actions or conditions leading to their resignation violated a fundamental public policy. This often involves pointing to specific laws or regulations that were breached.
4. Plaintiff’s Reasonable Response: The plaintiff must show that their resignation was a reasonable response to the intolerable conditions created by the employer. This means they didn’t quit impulsively but made a rational decision based on the circumstances.

Problems that Could Arise:

Several issues and complexities can arise in constructive discharge cases in California:

1. Subjective vs. Objective Standard: Determining whether the working conditions were objectively intolerable often involves subjectivity. What one person considers intolerable, another may not. Courts must evaluate the reasonableness of the employee’s response while considering the individual circumstances.
2. Evidence and Documentation: Proving a constructive discharge claim can be challenging, as it requires strong evidence of intolerable conditions and a violation of public policy. Documentation of incidents, witnesses, and a paper trail can be crucial.
3. Retaliation: Employers may argue that the employee’s resignation was voluntary and not due to intolerable conditions. They may assert that the employee simply did not like their job or had personal reasons for quitting.
4. Defining Public Policy: Determining what constitutes a fundamental violation of public policy can be contentious. Courts must carefully assess whether the employer’s actions or policies genuinely contravene established public policy principles.

Examples:

1. Whistleblower Retaliation: An employee discovers their employer is engaging in fraudulent billing practices. When the employee reports this to management, they are subjected to harassment and threats. Fearing for their job and safety, the employee resigns. In this case, the employee may argue constructive discharge based on being forced to choose between their job and reporting illegal activity.
2. Discrimination and Harassment: An employee experiences consistent racial discrimination and harassment from coworkers, with no intervention from the employer. The employee resigns due to the hostile work environment and could claim constructive discharge based on a violation of public policy against discrimination.

Conclusion

In conclusion, Constructive Discharge in Violation of Public Policy is a legal concept in California that provides a remedy for employees who are effectively forced to resign due to intolerable working conditions that violate fundamental public policy principles. While it can be a challenging claim to prove, it serves as an important safeguard for employees’ rights and protections in the workplace. Employers must be aware of their legal obligations to maintain a safe and lawful working environment to avoid potential liability for constructive discharge claims.

_______________________________________

Call 310-312-1100 Now to schedule a time to discuss your matter with Attorney John Michael Jensen.

2431. Constructive Discharge in Violation of Public Policy—Plaintiff Required to Violate Public Policy

New September 2003; Revised June 2014, December 2014, May 2020

Directions for Use

This instruction should be given if a plaintiff claims that the plaintiff’s constructive termination was wrongful because the defendant required the plaintiff to commit an act in violation of public policy. If the plaintiff alleges the plaintiff was subjected to intolerable working conditions that violate public policy, see CACI No. 2432, Constructive Discharge in Violation of Public Policy—Plaintiff Required to Endure Intolerable Conditions for Improper Purpose That Violates Public Policy.

This instruction must be supplemented with CACI No. 3903P, Damages From Employer for Wrongful Discharge (Economic Damage). See also CACI No. 2510, “Constructive Discharge” Explained.

The judge should determine whether the purported reason for plaintiff’s resignation would amount to a violation of public policy. (See Gantt v. Sentry Insurance (1992) 1 Cal.4th 1083, 1092 [4 Cal.Rptr.2d 874, 824 P.2d 680], overruled on other grounds

in Green v. Ralee Engineering Co. (1998) 19 Cal.4th 66, 80 fn. 6 [78 Cal.Rptr.2d 16, 960 P.2d 1046].) The jury should then be instructed that the alleged conduct would constitute a public-policy violation if proved.

Sources and Authority

• “[W]hen an employer’s discharge of an employee violates fundamental principles of public policy, the discharged employee may maintain a tort action and recover damages traditionally available in such actions.” (Tameny v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (1980) 27 Cal.3d 167, 170 [164 Cal.Rptr. 839, 610 P.2d 1330].)
• “[A]n employer’s authority over its employees does not include the right to demand that the employee commit a criminal act to further its interests, and an employer may not coerce compliance with such unlawful directions by discharging an employee who refuses to follow such an order. An employer engaging in such conduct violates a basic duty imposed by law upon all employers, and thus an employee who has suffered damages as a result of such discharge may maintain a tort action for wrongful discharge against the employer.” (Tameny, supra, 27 Cal.3d at p. 178.)
• “[T]his court established a set of requirements that a policy must satisfy to support a tortious discharge claim. First, the policy must be supported by either constitutional or statutory provisions. Second, the policy must be ‘public’ in the sense that it ‘inures to the benefit of the public’ rather than serving merely the interests of the individual. Third, the policy must have been articulated at the time of the discharge. Fourth, the policy must be ‘fundamental’ and ‘substantial.’ ” (Stevenson v. Superior Court (1997) 16 Cal.4th 880, 889–890 [66

Cal.Rptr.2d 888, 941 P.2d 1157], footnote omitted.)

• “[T]he cases in which violations of public policy are found generally fall into four categories: (1) refusing to violate a statute; (2) performing a statutory obligation (3) exercising a statutory right or privilege; and (4) reporting an alleged violation of a statute of public importance.” (Gantt v. Sentry Insurance (1992) 1 Cal.4th 1083, 1090–1091 [4 Cal.Rptr.2d 874, 824 P.2d 680], internal

citations and fn. omitted, overruled on other grounds in Green v. Ralee Engineering Co. (1998) 19 Cal.4th 66, 80, fn. 6 [78 Cal.Rptr.2d 16, 960 P.2d

1046]; accord Stevenson, supra, 16 Cal.4th at p. 889.)

• “In addition to statutes and constitutional provisions, valid administrative regulations may also serve as a source of fundamental public policy that impacts on an employer’s right to discharge employees when such regulations implement fundamental public policy found in their enabling statutes.” (D’sa v. Playhut, Inc. (2000) 85 Cal.App.4th 927, 933 [102 Cal.Rptr.2d 495], internal citation omitted.)
• “Constructive discharge occurs when the employer’s conduct effectively forces an employee to resign. Although the employee may say, ‘I quit,’ the employment relationship is actually severed involuntarily by the employer’s acts, against the employee’s will. As a result, a constructive discharge is legally regarded as a firing rather than a resignation.” (Turner v. Anheuser-Busch, Inc. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 1238, 1244–1245 [32 Cal.Rptr.2d 223, 876 P.2d 1022], internal citation omitted.)
• “Although situations may exist where the employee’s decision to resign is unreasonable as a matter of law, ‘[w]hether conditions were so intolerable as to

justify a reasonable employee’s decision to resign is normally a question of fact. [Citation.]’ ” (Vasquez v. Franklin Management Real Estate Fund, Inc. (2013) 222 Cal.App.4th 819, 827 [166 Cal.Rptr.3d 242].)

• “In order to establish a constructive discharge, an employee must plead and prove . . . that the employer either intentionally created or knowingly permitted working conditions that were so intolerable or aggravated at the time of the employee’s resignation that a reasonable employer would realize that a reasonable person in the employee’s position would be compelled to resign.” (Turner, supra, 7 Cal.4th at p. 1251.)
  • “The conditions giving rise to the resignation must be sufficiently extraordinary and egregious to overcome the normal motivation of a competent, diligent, and reasonable employee to remain on the job to earn a livelihood and to serve his

or her employer. The proper focus is on whether the resignation was coerced, not whether it was simply one rational option for the employee.” (Turner, supra, 7 Cal.4th at p. 1246.)

• “In some circumstances, a single intolerable incident, such as a crime of violence against an employee by an employer, or an employer’s ultimatum that an employee commit a crime, may constitute a constructive discharge. Such misconduct potentially could be found ‘aggravated.’ ” (Turner, supra, 7 Cal.4th at p. 1247, fn. 3.)
  • “The mere existence of illegal conduct in a workplace does not, without more, render employment conditions intolerable to a reasonable employee.” (Turner, supra, 7 Cal.4th at p. 1254.)
  • “[T]he standard by which a constructive discharge is determined is an objective one—the question is ‘whether a reasonable person faced with the allegedly intolerable employer actions or conditions of employment would have no reasonable alternative except to quit.’ ” (Turner, supra, 7 Cal.4th at p. 1248, internal citations omitted.)
  • “[U]nder Turner, the proper focus is on the working conditions themselves, not on the plaintiff’s subjective reaction to those conditions.” (Simers v. Los Angeles Times Communications, LLC (2018) 18 Cal.App.5th 1248, 1272 [227 Cal.Rptr.3d

695], original italics.)

• “The length of time the plaintiff remained on the job may be one relevant factor in determining the intolerability of employment conditions from the standpoint of a reasonable person.” (Turner, supra, 7 Cal.4th at p. 1254.)
  • “[T]here was, as the trial court found, substantial evidence that plaintiff’s age and disability were ‘substantial motivating reason[s]’ for the adverse employment action or actions to which plaintiff was subjected. But the discriminatory motive for plaintiff’s working conditions has no bearing on whether the evidence was sufficient to establish constructive discharge.” (Simers, supra, 18 Cal.App.5th at p. 1271.)

CACI No. 2431                   WRONGFUL TERMINATION

Secondary Sources

3 Witkin, Summary of California Law (11th ed. 2017) Agency and Employment,

§ 235

Chin et al., California Practice Guide: Employment Litigation, Ch. 4-G, Constructive Discharge, ¶¶ 4:405–4:406, 4:409–4:410, 4:421–4:422 (The Rutter Group)

Chin et al., California Practice Guide: Employment Litigation, Ch. 5-A, Wrongful Discharge In Violation Of Public Policy (Tameny Claims), ¶¶ 5:45–5:47, 5:50, 5:70, 5:105, 5:115, 5:150, 5:151, 5:170, 5:195, 5:220 (The Rutter Group)

1 Wrongful Employment Termination Practice (Cont.Ed.Bar 2d ed.) Public Policy Violations, §§ 5.45–5.46

4 Wilcox, California Employment Law, Ch. 60, Liability for Wrongful Termination and Discipline, § 60.04 (Matthew Bender)

21 California Forms of Pleading and Practice, Ch. 249, Employment Law: Termination and Discipline, §§ 249.12, 249.15 (Matthew Bender)

10 California Points and Authorities, Ch. 100, Employer and Employee: Wrongful Termination and Discipline, §§ 100.31, 100.35–100.38 (Matthew Bender) California Civil Practice: Employment Litigation §§ 6:23–6:25

Call 310-312-1100 Now to schedule a time to discuss your matter with Attorney John Michael Jensen.