Employer Defenses – Good Cause Defense

In the context of wrongful termination in California, the employer’s “good cause” defense is a critical aspect of employment law. Employers may invoke this defense to justify their decision to terminate an employee. In this overview, I’ll provide a comprehensive explanation of the employer’s good cause defense, its legal consequences, potential problems, and examples to illustrate the concept.

1. Good Cause Defense in California:

Under California law, employers can terminate employees without breaching employment contracts if they have “good cause” for doing so. Good cause is a legally recognized and justified reason for termination. The concept of good cause serves as a defense against wrongful termination claims.

2. Elements of Good Cause Defense:

To successfully assert the good cause defense, employers typically need to demonstrate the following elements:

a. Legitimate Business Reason: Employers must have a legitimate business reason for the termination. Common reasons may include poor job performance, misconduct, violation of company policies, or economic necessity (e.g., layoffs).

b. Consistency: Employers must show that they applied their termination policies consistently and fairly across all employees in similar situations.

c. Notice and Opportunity to Improve: In some cases, employers may be required to provide employees with notice of performance issues and an opportunity to improve before termination, particularly if it is an established company policy.

3. Legal Consequences of the Good Cause Defense:

If an employer successfully demonstrates good cause for termination, it can have significant legal consequences:

a. Defense Against Wrongful Termination Claims: The employer’s good cause defense can shield them from liability in wrongful termination lawsuits.

b. Preservation of At-Will Employment: In cases where employment is at-will (i.e., not governed by an employment contract), a successful good cause defense reinforces the employer’s right to terminate employees for legitimate reasons.

4. Problems that Could Arise:

Several issues and complexities can arise with the employer’s good cause defense:

a. Subjectivity: Determining what constitutes “good cause” can be subjective, leading to disputes over whether the employer’s reasons are justified.

b. Inconsistent Application: If an employer inconsistently applies termination policies or selectively enforces them, it may weaken the good cause defense and invite claims of discrimination or retaliation.

c. Failure to Provide Notice: If an employer fails to provide employees with notice or an opportunity to improve performance as required by company policy or employment contracts, it can undermine the defense.

5. Examples:

Here are examples to illustrate the employer’s good cause defense:

a. Poor Job Performance: An employee consistently fails to meet performance targets despite receiving feedback and coaching. The employer decides to terminate the employee for poor job performance, which could be a valid good cause defense.

b. Misconduct: An employee engages in serious misconduct, such as harassment or theft, and the employer terminates the employee in accordance with company policies. This can be a good cause defense.

c. Layoffs Due to Economic Necessity: A company experiences financial hardship and is forced to lay off a portion of its workforce to remain solvent. The terminations are conducted in a non-discriminatory manner based on objective criteria, such as seniority or job function. This may be a good cause defense against wrongful termination claims.

Conclusion

In summary, the employer’s good cause defense is a crucial aspect of California employment law that allows employers to justify terminations when they have legitimate business reasons. However, it is essential for employers to apply termination policies consistently and fairly to avoid potential legal problems. Employees who believe they were wrongfully terminated should seek legal advice to assess the validity of the employer’s good cause defense and determine whether their rights have been violated under California employment law.

______________________________

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

Additional Information

In California, the concept of “good cause” in employment law is particularly relevant in cases of wrongful termination. This overview will delve into the legal framework, potential issues, and examples to illustrate these concepts.

Legal Framework

1. At-Will Employment: California primarily follows the at-will employment doctrine, meaning either the employer or employee can terminate the employment relationship at any time, for any reason. However, there are exceptions.
2. Good Cause Definition: “Good cause” is a legal term used to justify an employer’s decision to terminate an employee. It generally refers to legitimate, non-discriminatory, and non-retaliatory reasons for termination. Examples include poor performance, misconduct, violation of company policy, or economic necessity.
3. Legal Standards for Good Cause: Courts evaluate whether an employer had good cause for termination based on the reasonableness of the employer’s decision, considering the circumstances.
4. Exceptions to At-Will Employment: These include implied contracts, public policy violations, and anti-discrimination laws. An employer cannot claim good cause if the termination violates these exceptions.

Consequences of Violating Good Cause

1. Wrongful Termination Claims: If an employer cannot establish good cause, the employee might have grounds for a wrongful termination lawsuit.
2. Damages: Employees can seek damages for lost wages, emotional distress, and punitive damages in cases of egregious conduct.
3. Reputational Risk: Employers face reputational damage, which can affect their business and ability to attract talent.

Potential Problems

1. Subjectivity: Determining what constitutes good cause can be subjective, leading to legal disputes.
2. Documentation and Evidence: Employers must adequately document performance issues or misconduct to substantiate their claims of good cause.
3. Implied Contracts: Even in at-will situations, statements or promises made by employers can be construed as implied contracts, limiting the employer’s ability to terminate without good cause.
4. Retaliation Claims: Employees might claim that the termination was retaliatory, especially if they have engaged in protected activities like whistleblowing.

Examples

1. Performance-Based Termination: An employee consistently underperforms despite warnings and performance improvement plans. The employer documents these issues and terminates the employee for poor performance, constituting good cause.
2. Violation of Company Policy: An employee violates a critical company policy, such as a safety regulation or anti-harassment policy. This violation can be considered good cause for termination.
3. Economic Layoff: An employer faces economic hardship and decides to lay off a portion of the workforce. If done fairly and based on objective criteria, this can be good cause for termination.
4. Wrongful Termination Scenario: An employee files a sexual harassment complaint and is subsequently fired for a minor infraction. This could be seen as retaliation rather than good cause, leading to legal consequences for the employer.

Conclusion

In California, while employers have broad discretion in terminating employees under the at-will doctrine, they must ensure that the reasons fall under “good cause” to avoid legal repercussions. The subjective nature of this concept and the need for thorough documentation make it a complex area in employment law. Employers are advised to consult legal experts to navigate these intricacies and minimize legal risks.

_______

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

2421. Breach of Employment Contract—Specified Term—Good- Cause Defense (Lab. Code, § 2924)

[Name of defendant] claims that [he/she/nonbinary pronoun/it] did not breach the employment contract because [he/she/nonbinary pronoun/it] [discharged/demoted] [name of plaintiff] for good cause. To establish good cause, [name of defendant] must prove:

[that [name of plaintiff] willfully breached a job duty] [or]

[that [name of plaintiff] continually neglected [his/her/nonbinary pronoun] job duties] [or]

[that a continued incapacity prevented [name of plaintiff] from performing [his/her/nonbinary pronoun] job duties.]

New September 2003; Revised June 2012

Directions for Use

This instruction sets forth the statutory grounds under which an employer may terminate an employment contract for a specified term. (See Lab. Code, § 2924.) It should be given when the employee alleges wrongful discharge in breach of the contract and the employer defends by asserting plaintiff was justifiably discharged.

This instruction may not be appropriate if the parties have agreed to a particular meaning of “good cause” (e.g., a written employment agreement specifically defining “good cause” for discharge). (See Uecker & Assocs. v. Lei (In re San Jose Med. Mgmt.) (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 2007) 2007 Bankr. LEXIS 4829.) If so, the instruction should be modified to set forth the contractual grounds for good cause. In the absence of grounds for termination in the contract, the employer is limited to those set forth in the statute. (See Khajavi v. Feather River Anesthesia Medical Group (2000) 84 Cal.App.4th 32, 57 [100 Cal.Rptr.2d 627].)

The third option may not be asserted if the plaintiff has a statutory right to be absent from work (for example, for family or medical leave or to accommodate a disability) throughout the entire period of incapacity.

Sources and Authority

• At-Will Employment. Labor Code section 2922.
• Termination of Employment for Specified Term. Labor Code section 2924.
• “[L]abor Code section 2924 has traditionally been interpreted to ‘inhibit[] the termination of employment for a specified term except in case of a wilful breach of duty, of habitual neglect of, or continued incapacity to perform, a duty.’ ” (Khajavi v. Feather River Anesthesia Medical Group (2000) 84 Cal.App.4th 32, 57 [100 Cal.Rptr.2d 627], internal citations omitted.)
• “Unlike a wrongful discharge based on an implied-in-fact contract, an employee

who has a contract for a specified term may not be terminated prior to the term’s expiration based on an honest but mistaken belief that the employee breached the contract: Such a right would treat a contract with a specified term no better than an implied contract that has no term; such a right would dilute the enforceability of the contract’s specified term because an employee who had properly performed his or her contract could still be terminated before the term’s end; and such a right would run afoul of the plain language of Labor Code section 2924, which allows termination of an employment for a specified term only ‘in case of any willful breach of duty . . . habitual neglect of . . . duty or continued incapacity to perform it.’ Termination of employment for a specified term, before the end of the term, based solely on the mistaken belief of a breach, cannot be reconciled with either the governing statute’s text or settled principles of contract law.” (Khajavi, supra, 84 Cal.App.4th at pp. 38–39.)

• Good cause in the context of wrongful termination based on an implied contract “ ‘is quite different from the standard applicable in determining the propriety of an employee’s termination under a contract for a specified term.’ ” (Khajavi, supra, 84 Cal.App.4th at p. 58, internal citations omitted.)
• “An employer is justified in discharging his employee, when the latter fails to perform his duty, even though injury does not result to the employer as a result of the employee’s failure to do his duty.” (Bank of America National Trust & Savings Ass’n v. Republic Productions, Inc. (1941) 44 Cal.App.2d 651, 654 [112 P.2d 972], internal citation omitted.)
• “To terminate an employment without the expiration of its contractual term ‘there must be good cause.’ The grounds for terminating such an employment are stated in Labor Code section 2924. It is therefore not every deviation of

the employee from the standard of performance sought by his employer that will justify a discharge. There must be some ‘wilful act or wilful misconduct……………………………………….. ’

when the employee uses his best efforts to serve the interests of his employer.” (Holtzendorff v. Housing Authority of the City of Los Angeles (1967) 250 Cal.App.2d 596, 610 [58 Cal.Rptr. 886], internal citation omitted.)

• “ ‘Willful’ disobedience of a specific, peremptory instruction of the master, if the instruction be reasonable and consistent with the contract, is a breach of duty—a breach of the contract of service; and, like any other breach of the contract, of itself entitles the master to renounce the contract of employment.” (May v. New York Motion Picture Corp. (1920) 45 Cal.App. 396, 403 [187 P. 785].)
• “An employment agreement that specifies the length of employment (e.g., two years) limits the employer’s right to discharge the employee within that period. Unless the agreement provides otherwise (e.g., by reserving the right to discharge for cause), the employer may terminate employment for a specified term only for [the grounds specified in Labor Code section 2924].” (Chin et al., California Practice Guide: Employment Litigation, Ch. 4-A, Employment Presumed At Will, ¶ 4:47 (The Rutter Group)

Secondary Sources

Chin et al., Cal. Practice Guide: Employment Litigation, Ch. 4-A, Employment Presumed At Will, ¶¶ 4:2, 4:47, 4:56, 4:57 (The Rutter Group)

Chin et al., California Practice Guide: Employment Litigation, Ch. 4-B, Agreements Limiting At-Will Termination, ¶¶ 4:47, 4:56, 4:57 (The Rutter Group)

1 Wrongful Employment Termination Practice (Cont.Ed.Bar 2d ed.) Contract Actions, §§ 8.22–8.26

4 Wilcox, California Employment Law, Ch. 62, Avoiding Wrongful Termination and Discipline Claims, § 62.02 (Matthew Bender) 21 California Forms of Pleading and Practice, Ch. 249, Employment Law: Termination and Discipline, §§ 249.13, 249.21, 249.60–249.63

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