No matter how careful you are in screening prospective employees, sometimes the fit between employer and employee just isn’t a good one. When efforts to address a staff member’s behavior have been exhausted, or if termination is contemplated, it’s important to understand the legal view of the employer-employee relationship. A wrongful termination claim can be devastating to a business.
In California, an employer-employee relationship with no specified duration is presumed to be an “at-will” relationship. “At-will” generally means that an Employer or an Employee can terminate the employment relationship at any time, with or without cause, and with or without a reason, although exceptions to the at-will rule have been created by statute, the courts, and public policy. It is these exceptions that Employers and Employees alike should understand because they often serve as the basis for a wrongful termination claim (which usually begins with such phrases as “your position has been terminated,” “you are being laid off,” “We’re going to have to let you go,” or “you’re fired”).
In today’s litigious environment, it is important for the Employer and the Employee to know what makes a termination wrongful so that hefty litigation costs and/or damages can be avoided. There are many scenarios in which a wrongful termination arises. It could involve a “constructive termination” where the Employee is forced to quit because working conditions became so intolerable that he/she could no longer work for the Employer. It also could involve an Employer discriminating against an Employee because of the employee’s age, disability, gender, marital status, national origin, race, religion, or sexual orientation. In the case of a disability, it could mean that the Employer terminated (or didn’t hire) an Employee because of his/her disability or that the Employer failed to adequately participate in what is called an “interactive process” to determine whether a reasonable accommodation can be made for the Employee.
Here are some examples.
Constructive Termination. In 2010, a maintenance employee was required by his employer to drive his own truck on work-related errands, such as going to the hardware store. The employee claimed he had to drive 30 miles per day running these errands. Despite repeated pleas to his supervisors for gas and mileage reimbursement, the supervisors continued to assign him driving tasks and consistently informed him he would not be reimbursed. As a result, the employee claimed he had “no choice but to resign” and thereafter filed a lawsuit for constructive wrongful termination. Although the employer convinced the trial court to dismiss the employee’s lawsuit, the California Court of Appeal determined the trial court was wrong and allowed the employee to seek damages by proving that the employer “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.”
Failing to Accommodate a Disability. In 2012 an employee who had been on medical leave for her cerebral palsy gave her manager a doctor’s note requesting periodic breaks from standing on her feet. Instead of allowing the employee to return to work and providing her with the requested accommodation, the manager demanded that the employee obtain a medical release with no restrictions. Because an employer’s failure to provide an employee with a reasonable accommodation violates the Americans with Disabilities Act as a form of disability discrimination, the employer ended up settling this claim for $50,000.
Employment Laws That Companies Must Know To Stay Out of Trouble
In 2014, a San Jose employee, within a month of being hired as a senior bookkeeper, disclosed to his employer that he had an eye disease which substantially limited his ability to see. Although fully able to perform the essential functions of his job as a senior bookkeeper, the employer terminated the employee because the employee’s vision impairment would make it impossible for him to distribute payroll checks and deliver mail by car, a duty that had not been previously disclosed to the employee. To settle this claim, including the Employer’s failure to participate in an interactive process to find a reasonable accommodation for the employee’s newly created driving duties, the employer had to pay the employee $100,000 and implement new policies and anti-discrimination training.