Constructive Discharge- Intolerable Conditions

Constructive Discharge in Violation of Public Policy, specifically when the plaintiff is required to endure intolerable conditions that violate public policy, is a significant aspect of wrongful termination and employment law in the state of California. This legal concept arises when an employee is subjected to working conditions so unbearable that they are essentially forced to resign, and these conditions violate fundamental public policy principles. In such cases, the law provides remedies for employees who are forced to endure intolerable conditions that go against established public policy.

Overview of Constructive Discharge in Violation of Public Policy:

1. Definition: Constructive discharge occurs when an employer creates a working environment so hostile, oppressive, or intolerable that a reasonable person in the same situation would feel compelled to resign. In California, constructive discharge claims can be based on various violations of public policy.
2. Violation of Public Policy: To succeed in a constructive discharge claim, the employee must demonstrate that the working conditions that led to their resignation violated a fundamental public policy. Public policy includes laws, regulations, and societal norms that protect employees from harm or discrimination, such as workplace safety, anti-discrimination laws, and laws prohibiting retaliation.

Essential Factual Allegations:

For a successful constructive discharge claim in California, the plaintiff typically needs to prove the following elements:

1. Intolerable Working Conditions: The plaintiff must establish that the working conditions were so intolerable that a reasonable person in their position would find it impossible to continue working under those circumstances. This involves demonstrating the severity and persistence of the adverse conditions.
2. Causation: The plaintiff needs to establish a direct link between the intolerable conditions and their resignation. They must demonstrate that it was the employer’s actions, policies, or negligence that compelled them to resign.
3. Public Policy Violation: The employee must provide evidence that the employer’s actions or the working conditions leading to their resignation violated a fundamental public policy. This could involve pointing to specific statutes, regulations, or established legal principles.
4. Plaintiff’s Reasonable Response: It must be shown that the employee’s resignation was a reasonable response to the intolerable conditions created by the employer. This means the employee didn’t quit arbitrarily but made a logical decision based on the circumstances.

Problems that Could Arise:

Several challenges and complexities may arise in constructive discharge cases in California:

1. Subjective vs. Objective Standard: Determining whether the working conditions were objectively intolerable often involves subjectivity. Different individuals may have varying thresholds for what is intolerable, making it challenging to establish a universal standard.
2. Evidence and Documentation: Proving a constructive discharge claim requires strong evidence of intolerable conditions and a violation of public policy. Documenting incidents, preserving evidence, and having credible witnesses can be crucial.
3. Retaliation: Employers may argue that the employee’s resignation was voluntary and not due to intolerable conditions. They might assert that the employee left for personal reasons or simply didn’t like the job.
4. Defining Public Policy: Determining what constitutes a fundamental violation of public policy can be contentious. Courts must carefully evaluate whether the employer’s actions or policies genuinely contravene established public policy principles.

Examples:

1. Sexual Harassment: An employee experiences persistent and severe sexual harassment at the workplace, and despite reporting it to their employer, no effective action is taken to address the issue. The employee resigns due to the hostile work environment and could claim constructive discharge based on a violation of public policy against sexual harassment.
2. Unsafe Working Conditions: An employee working in a construction company is repeatedly required to work without proper safety equipment, even after reporting safety violations. Fearing for their life and well-being, the employee resigns and claims constructive discharge based on violations of public policy related to workplace safety.

Conclusion

In summary, Constructive Discharge in Violation of Public Policy, where the plaintiff is required to endure intolerable conditions that violate public policy, is a critical aspect of California employment law. It serves as a legal remedy for employees who are effectively forced to resign due to unbearable working conditions that contravene established public policy principles. However, these cases can be legally intricate and factually challenging, requiring careful evaluation of the specific circumstances and evidence presented. Employers must be vigilant in ensuring a safe, non-discriminatory, and compliant work environment to mitigate potential liability for constructive discharge claims.

_______________

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 California employment law is a nuanced and complex area.

Legal Framework

1. Definition of Constructive Discharge: Constructive discharge occurs when an employee’s working conditions become so intolerable that they feel compelled to resign. Although not explicitly fired, the circumstances effectively force them to quit.
2. Violation of Public Policy: In California, for a constructive discharge to violate public policy, the intolerable conditions must contravene fundamental policies expressed in constitutional provisions, statutes, or regulations. This typically involves violations of anti-discrimination laws, labor codes, or health and safety regulations.
3. Legal Precedents: California courts have established criteria through various cases, like Turner v. Anheuser-Busch, Inc. (1994), which requires that the working conditions be so unusually adverse that a reasonable person in the employee’s position would feel compelled to resign.

Essential Factual Allegations

1. Intolerable Working Conditions: The employee must demonstrate that the working conditions were objectively intolerable. This goes beyond mere unpleasantness or stress.
2. Employer’s Knowledge or Participation: It must be shown that the employer either deliberately created the conditions or knowingly permitted them to exist.
3. Violation of Specific Public Policies: The employee needs to pinpoint the exact public policy violated by the employer’s actions.
4. Direct Causation: There must be a clear causal link between the intolerable working conditions and the employee’s resignation.

Potential Problems

1. Subjectivity of ‘Intolerable Conditions’: Determining what constitutes intolerable conditions can be subjective and varies case by case, making legal outcomes unpredictable.
2. Proof of Employer’s Intent: Proving that the employer intentionally created or allowed the intolerable conditions can be challenging.
3. Public Policy Ambiguity: Identifying a specific public policy and demonstrating its violation is often complex, as public policies can be broad or ambiguous.
4. Risk of Retaliation Claims: Employers may face retaliation claims if they are perceived to have forced out an employee for complaining about illegal or unethical practices.

Examples and Reasoning

1. Example of Discriminatory Environment: An employee subjected to severe and pervasive racial harassment may resign and claim constructive discharge. The intolerable conditions (racial harassment) violate public policy (anti-discrimination laws).
2. Health and Safety Neglect: An employee who quits due to unsafe working conditions, like exposure to toxic substances without proper safety measures, can argue constructive discharge if these conditions violate occupational safety regulations.
3. Whistleblower Retaliation: An employee resigns after being demoted and harassed for reporting corporate fraud. This could be a constructive discharge, as whistleblower protections are grounded in public policy.

Logic and Reasoning

• The logic behind constructive discharge is to recognize situations where an employer effectively “fires” an employee through intolerable conditions, bypassing legal protections against wrongful termination.
• The requirement for a public policy violation ensures that the law protects significant societal interests, not just personal grievances.
• The criteria for proving constructive discharge aim to balance protecting employees from abusive practices while preventing frivolous claims against employers.

Conclusion

Constructive discharge in violation of public policy in California’s employment law serves as a crucial legal tool for employees facing egregious working conditions that force them to resign. However, its application is complex, requiring clear evidence of intolerable conditions, violation of specific public policies, and a direct causal link to the employee’s resignation. The subjective nature of these criteria and the need for precise legal arguments make navigating such cases challenging for both employees and employers.

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

2432. Constructive Discharge in Violation of Public Policy—Plaintiff Required to Endure Intolerable Conditions That Violate Public Policy

New September 2003; Revised December 2014, June 2015, May 2020

Directions for Use

This instruction should be given if the plaintiff claims that the plaintiff’s constructive termination was wrongful because defendant subjected plaintiff to intolerable working conditions in violation of public policy. The 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.

Whether conditions are so intolerable as to justify the employee’s decision to quit rather than endure them is to be judged by an objective reasonable-employee standard. (Turner v. Anheuser-Busch, Inc. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 1238, 1247 [32

Cal.Rptr.2d 223, 876 P.2d 1022].) This standard is captured in element 4. The paragraph at the end of the instruction gives the jury additional guidance as to what makes conditions intolerable. (See id. at p. 1247.) Note that 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. (Id. at p. 1247, fn. 3.)

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].)
• “[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.)

• “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.)
• “Plaintiffs assert, in essence, that they were terminated for refusing to engage in conduct that violated fundamental public policy, to wit, nonconsensual sexual acts. They also assert, in effect, that they were discharged in retaliation for attempting to exercise a fundamental right—the right to be free from sexual assault and harassment. Under either theory, plaintiffs, in short, should have been granted leave to amend to plead a cause of action for wrongful discharge in violation of public policy.” (Rojo v. Kliger (1990) 52 Cal.3d 65, 91 [276

Cal.Rptr. 130, 801 P.2d 373].)

• “Constructive discharge occurs when the employer’s conduct effectively forces an employee to resign. Although the employee may say, ‘I quit,’ the employment

WRONGFUL TERMINATION                         CACI No. 2432

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, supra, 7 Cal.4th at pp. 1244–1245, 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 order to amount to a constructive discharge, adverse working conditions must be unusually ‘aggravated’ or amount to a ‘continuous pattern’ before the situation will be deemed intolerable. In general, ‘[s]ingle, trivial, or isolated acts of [misconduct] are insufficient’ to support a constructive discharge claim. Moreover, a poor performance rating or a demotion, even when accompanied by reduction in pay, does not by itself trigger a constructive discharge” (Turner, supra, 7 Cal.4th at p. 1247, footnote and internal citation omitted.)
  • “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.)

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, 4:409–4:411, 4:421–4:422 (The Rutter Group)

Chin et al., California Practice Guide: Employment Litigation, Ch. 5-(I)B, Wrongful Discharge In Violation Of Public Policy (Tameny Claims), ¶¶ 5:4, 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, §§ 249.15, 249.50 (Matthew Bender)

10 California Points and Authorities, Ch. 100, Employer and Employee: Wrongful Termination and Discipline, §§ 100.31, 100.32, 100.36–100.38 (Matthew Bender) California Civil Practice: Employment Litigation §§ 6:23–6:25 (Thomson Reuters)

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