Defenses to Breaches of Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing

1. Legal Context of the Implied Covenant

• Nature of the Covenant: In California, every employment contract implicitly contains a covenant of good faith and fair dealing. This covenant mandates fair treatment in the execution of contractual obligations and rights.
• Relevance in Wrongful Termination: In wrongful termination cases, this covenant is often cited when an employee alleges that their dismissal was carried out in bad faith or unfairly deprived them of contract benefits.

2. Common Defenses Against Alleged Breaches

• At-Will Employment Doctrine: The primary defense is the assertion of California’s at-will employment principle, which allows employers to terminate employment for any legal reason, without being inherently in bad faith.
• Legitimate Business Reasons: Demonstrating that the termination or employment decision was based on legitimate business reasons (e.g., downsizing, poor performance) and not an intention to deprive the employee of benefits.
• Lack of Malice or Fraud: Arguing that there was no malicious intent or fraud involved in the decision-making process.
• Consistency in Policy Application: Showing that the employer’s actions were consistent with company policies and applied uniformly to all employees.

3. Examples and Case Studies

• Example 1: A company enforces a layoff due to economic downturn. If the layoffs are evenly applied and not used to specifically target certain employees unfairly, this can be a defense against a breach claim.
• Example 2: An employee is terminated for poor performance, backed by documented performance reviews. This documentation can be used to show that the termination was not in bad faith but a legitimate business decision.

4. Legal Consequences and Implications

• Avoidance of Liability: Successful defenses can lead to the dismissal of wrongful termination claims, saving the employer from significant liabilities.
• Setting Precedents: Strong defenses can set precedents for future cases, influencing how courts interpret the covenant in employment disputes.

5. Problems and Challenges

• Proving Legitimate Business Reasons: The burden to prove that a termination was due to legitimate business reasons can be challenging, especially if documentation and consistent policies are lacking.
• Balancing Interests: There’s a fine balance between an employer’s right to make business decisions and the employee’s right to fair treatment.
• Varying Interpretations: Courts may interpret the covenant and defenses differently, leading to inconsistent outcomes.

6. Conclusion

Defenses against breaches of the Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing in wrongful termination cases in California hinge on demonstrating legitimate, non-malicious reasons for employment decisions. The at-will employment doctrine plays a significant role, but it must be carefully balanced against the covenant’s requirements. Employers must navigate this complex legal landscape with thorough documentation and consistent policy application to successfully defend against such claims. The subjective nature of these cases and the variability in court interpretations present ongoing challenges in employment law.

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

________________________

Additional Information

Defenses to Breaches of Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing in Wrongful Termination Cases in California:

Introduction:

The implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing is a fundamental concept in California employment law. It is an inherent part of every employment contract, whether written or oral, and imposes an obligation on both employers and employees to act in good faith and deal fairly with each other. In the context of wrongful termination, the breach of this covenant can give rise to legal consequences for employers. However, there are certain defenses that employers may raise to mitigate or defend against such claims.

1. Overview of the Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing: The implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing implies that employers and employees must not act in a manner that undermines the other party’s rights or benefits under the employment contract. In the context of wrongful termination, it means that employers cannot terminate an employee for arbitrary, capricious, or bad faith reasons, even if the employment contract is at-will.
2. Wrongful Termination Claims in California: To bring a wrongful termination claim in California, an employee must typically demonstrate one of the following:a. Violation of public policy. b. Breach of an implied employment contract. c. Breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.
3. Common Defenses to Breach of Implied Covenant Claims: Employers facing claims of breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing in wrongful termination cases can employ various defenses to protect their interests:a. At-will Employment Doctrine: One of the primary defenses is the assertion that the employment relationship was at-will, meaning the employer had the right to terminate the employee at any time and for any reason, as long as it was not unlawful.Example: An employer argues that the employee was an at-will employee and, therefore, the termination was lawful and did not breach the implied covenant.b. Legitimate Business Reasons: Employers may argue that the termination was based on legitimate, non-discriminatory business reasons, such as poor performance, violations of company policies, or economic necessity.Example: An employer can provide evidence of an employee’s consistent poor performance as the reason for termination.c. Absence of Bad Faith: Employers may claim that they acted in good faith and without malice when making the termination decision, demonstrating that the decision was not made with an intent to harm the employee.Example: An employer can present documentation of a fair and thorough performance evaluation process leading to the termination decision.
4. Potential Problems and Challenges for Employers: Despite these defenses, there are potential problems and challenges employers may face when defending against a breach of implied covenant claim:a. Establishing Good Faith: Proving that the termination was in good faith can be challenging, as it often relies on subjective interpretations of the employer’s intent.b. Inconsistent Treatment: If an employer has not consistently enforced its policies or has treated other employees differently in similar situations, it may weaken their defense.c. Mixed Motive: If there is evidence of both legitimate business reasons and discriminatory intent, the defense becomes more complex.d. Public Policy Violation: If the termination violates a fundamental public policy, the at-will defense may not apply.

Conclusion:

In California, the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing plays a crucial role in wrongful termination cases. While employers can raise defenses such as at-will employment and legitimate business reasons, the key is to demonstrate that the termination was not arbitrary or in bad faith. Employers should always seek legal counsel when facing such claims to navigate the complex legal landscape effectively.

_________________________

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

2424. Affirmative Defense—Breach of the Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing—Good Faith Though Mistaken Belief

[Name of defendant] claims that [he/she/nonbinary pronoun/it] did not breach the duty to act fairly and in good faith because [he/she/nonbinary pronoun/it] believed that there was a legitimate and reasonable business purpose for the conduct.

To succeed, [name of defendant] must prove both of the following:

1. That

conduct was based on an honest belief that [insert alleged mistake]; and

• That, if true, [insert alleged mistake] would have been a legitimate and reasonable business purpose for the conduct.

New September 2003; Revised November 2019, May 2020

Directions for Use

In every contract, there is an implied promise that each party will not do anything to unfairly interfere with the right of any other party to receive the benefits of the contract. (Comunale v. Traders & General Ins. Co. (1958) 50 Cal.2d 654, 658 [328 P.2d 198].) Give CACI No. 2423, Breach of Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing—Employment Contract—Essential Factual Elements, if the employee asserts a claim that the employee’s termination or other adverse employment action was in breach of this implied covenant. Give this instruction if the employer asserts the defense that an honest, though mistaken, belief does not constitute a breach.

Sources and Authority

• “[B]ecause the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing requires the employer to act fairly and in good faith, an employer’s honest though mistaken belief that legitimate business reasons provided good cause for discharge, will negate a claim it sought in bad faith to deprive the employee of the benefits of the contract.” (Wilkerson v. Wells Fargo Bank (1989) 212 Cal.App.3d 1217, 1231 [261 Cal.Rptr. 185], internal citation omitted, disapproved on other grounds in Cotran v. Rollins Hudig Hall International, Inc. (1998) 17 Cal.4th 93, 96 [69

Cal.Rptr.2d 900, 948 P.2d 412].)

• “The jury was instructed that the neglect or refusal to fulfill a contractual obligation based on an honest, mistaken belief did not constitute a breach of the implied covenant.” (Luck v. Southern Pacific Transportation Co. (1990) 218 Cal.App.3d 1, 26 [267 Cal.Rptr. 618].)
• “[F]oley does not preclude inquiry into an employer’s motive for discharging an employee ” (Seubert v. McKesson Corp. (1990) 223 Cal.App.3d 1514, 1521

[273 Cal.Rptr. 296], overruled on other grounds, Dore v. Arnold Worldwide, Inc.

CACI No. 2424                   WRONGFUL TERMINATION

(2006) 39 Cal.4th 384, 389 [46 Cal.Rptr.3d 668, 139 P.3d 56].)

• “[T]he jury was asked to determine in its special verdict whether appellants had a legitimate reason to terminate [plaintiff]’s employment and whether appellants acted in good faith on an honest but mistaken belief that they had a legitimate business reason to terminate [plaintiff]’s employment.” (Seubert, supra, 223 Cal.App.3d at p. 1521 [upholding jury instruction].)

Secondary Sources

Chin et al., California Practice Guide: Employment Litigation, Ch. 4-A, Employment Presumed At Will, ¶ 4:5 (The Rutter Group)

Chin et al., California Practice Guide: Employment Litigation, Ch.4-C, “Good Cause” for Termination, ¶ 4:271 (The Rutter Group)

10 California Points and Authorities, Ch. 100, Employer and Employee: Wrongful Termination and Discipline, § 100.30 (Matthew Bender)

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