wrongful discharge claim in California

2009(Gantt v. Sentry Insurance (1992) 1 Cal.4th 1083, 1090 [ 4 Cal.Rptr.2d 874 , 824 P.2d 680 ] (Gantt), overruled on other grounds in Green v. Ralee Engineering Co. (1998) 19 Cal.4th 66, 80 [ 78 Cal.Rptr.2d 16 , 960 P.2d 1046 ]; Tameny, supra, at pp. 174—177.) A wrongful discharge in violation of public policy is commonly referred to as a “Tameny” claim.

2009(Gantt v. Sentry Insurance (1992) 1 Cal.4th 1083, 1090 [ 4 Cal.Rptr.2d 874 , 824 P.2d 680 ] (Gantt), overruled on other grounds in Green v. Ralee Engineering Co. (1998) 19 Cal.4th 66, 80 [ 78 Cal.Rptr.2d 16 , 960 P.2d 1046 ]; Tameny, supra, at pp. 174—177.) A wrongful discharge in violation of public policy is commonly referred to as a “Tameny” claim.

2015Thus, there can be no Tameny cause of action without the prior existence of an employment relationship between the parties.” (Miklosy v. Regents of University of California (2008) 44 Cal.4th 876, 900 .) 13 “[F]or a policy to support a wrongful discharge claim, it must be: (1) delineated in either constitutional or statutory provisions; (2) ‘public’ in the sense that it ‘inures to the benefit of the public’ rather than serving merely the interests of the individual; (3) well established at the time of the discharge; and (4) substantial and fundamental.” (Stevenson v. Superior Court (1997) 16 Ca

2008First, only four pages after the quoted passage appears, the Supreme Court restated the test, and explained that "for a policy to support a wrongful discharge claim, it must be: ... (3) well established at the time of the discharge." ( Stevenson, supra, 16 Cal.4th at p. 894 , 66 Cal.Rptr.2d 888 , 941 P.2d 1157 .) And only two paragraphs before the passage in question, Stevenson had noted the requirement set out in Gantt that the policy be "`well established' at the time of the discharge." ( Stevenson, at p. 889, 66 Cal.Rptr.2d 888 , 941 P.2d 1157 , citing Gantt, supra, 1 Cal.4th at p. 1090, 4

1994An employee who states a wrongful discharge claim for having refused to join a criminal conspiracy in violation of the antitrust laws (cf. Tameny, supra, 27 Cal.3d 167 ), or for having resisted efforts to induce him to give false information in a public investigation of sexual harassment charges filed by a co-worker (cf. Gantt v. Sentry Insurance, supra, 1 Cal.4th 1083 ), is provided a remedy in tort not only to compensate the individual plaintiff for the loss of employment but as an indirect means of vindicating the underlying fundamental public policy itself.

1985The doctrine of wrongful discharge holds that “when an employer’s discharge of an employee violates fundamental principles of public policy, *444 the discharged employee may maintain a tort action.” (Tameny v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (1980) 27 Cal.3d 167, 170 [ 164 Cal.Rptr. 839 , 610 P.2d 1330 ].) More recently, another division of this court has held that the public policy violation must have statutory support.

2007(Id. at pp. 665-666 [“Because we find [the plaintiff’s] communications [about suspected embezzlement] with the officers did not serve any interest other than the company’s, under Foley his reports will not support a wrongful termination claim”].) As noted in Collier, supra, 228 Cal.App.3d at page 1125 , however, American Computer is inconsistent with the later case of Hentzel, supra, 138 Cal.App.3d 290 , and “one of the principles upon which [American Computer] was based [absence of the employer’s attempt to coerce an employee to engage in criminal conduct] is no longer tenable in light of a r

1997Thus, Rojo, supra, 52 Cal.3d 65 , although it does define important aspects of the relationship between the FEHA and common law wrongful discharge claims, did not expressly decide whether the FEHA may itself be a source of fundamental public policy. (7) Jennings, supra, 8 Cal.4th 121 , a post- Gantt decision, examined whether the FEHA's prohibition against age discrimination in employment sufficiently established a fundamental public policy against such discrimination for purposes of a wrongful discharge claim against an employer who was statutorily exempt from that same FEHA prohibition.

2009(Gantt v. Sentry Insurance (1992) 1 Cal.4th 1083, 1090 [ 4 Cal.Rptr.2d 874 , 824 P.2d 680 ] (Gantt), overruled on other grounds in Green v. Ralee Engineering Co. (1998) 19 Cal.4th 66, 80 [ 78 Cal.Rptr.2d 16 , 960 P.2d 1046 ]; Tameny, supra, at pp. 174—177.) A wrongful discharge in violation of public policy is commonly referred to as a “Tameny” claim.

2009(Gantt v. Sentry Insurance (1992) 1 Cal.4th 1083, 1090 [ 4 Cal.Rptr.2d 874 , 824 P.2d 680 ] (Gantt), overruled on other grounds in Green v. Ralee Engineering Co. (1998) 19 Cal.4th 66, 80 [ 78 Cal.Rptr.2d 16 , 960 P.2d 1046 ]; Tameny, supra, at pp. 174—177.) A wrongful discharge in violation of public policy is commonly referred to as a “Tameny” claim.

2014(See Freund v. Nycomed Amersham (2003) 347 F.3d 752, 758-759 ; Hentzel v. Singer Co. (1982) 138 Cal.App.3d 290, 299-300 [ 188 Cal.Rptr. 159 ].) Ferrick claims that she was entitled to a safe workplace free of unlicensed drivers.

2014(See Freund v. Nycomed Amersham (2003) 347 F.3d 752, 758-759 ; Hentzel v. Singer Co. (1982) 138 Cal.App.3d 290, 299-300 [ 188 Cal.Rptr. 159 ].) Ferrick claims that she was entitled to a safe workplace free of unlicensed drivers.

2026DISCUSSION A. Standard of Review “‘In reviewing an order sustaining a demurrer, we examine the operative complaint de novo to determine whether it alleges facts sufficient to state a cause of action under any legal theory.’” (Matthews v. Becerra (2019) 8 Cal.5th 756, 768 ; accord, T.H. v. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp. (2017) 4 Cal.5th 145, 162 .) When evaluating the complaint, “we assume the truth of the allegations.” (Brown v. USA Taekwondo (2021) 11 Cal.5th 204 , 209; accord, Lee v. Hanley (2015) 61 Cal.4th 1225, 1230 .) “‘“‘We treat the demurrer as admitting all material facts properly ple

2026DISCUSSION A. Standard of Review “‘In reviewing an order sustaining a demurrer, we examine the operative complaint de novo to determine whether it alleges facts sufficient to state a cause of action under any legal theory.’” (Matthews v. Becerra (2019) 8 Cal.5th 756, 768 ; accord, T.H. v. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp. (2017) 4 Cal.5th 145, 162 .) When evaluating the complaint, “we assume the truth of the allegations.” (Brown v. USA Taekwondo (2021) 11 Cal.5th 204 , 209; accord, Lee v. Hanley (2015) 61 Cal.4th 1225, 1230 .) “‘“‘We treat the demurrer as admitting all material facts properly ple

2026DISCUSSION A. Standard of Review “‘In reviewing an order sustaining a demurrer, we examine the operative complaint de novo to determine whether it alleges facts sufficient to state a cause of action under any legal theory.’” (Matthews v. Becerra (2019) 8 Cal.5th 756, 768 ; accord, T.H. v. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp. (2017) 4 Cal.5th 145, 162 .) When evaluating the complaint, “we assume the truth of the allegations.” (Brown v. USA Taekwondo (2021) 11 Cal.5th 204 , 209; accord, Lee v. Hanley (2015) 61 Cal.4th 1225, 1230 .) “‘“‘We treat the demurrer as admitting all material facts properly ple

2009(General Dynamics, supra, at p. 1190.)” ( Solin, supra, 89 Cal.App.4th at pp. 457-458, italics added.) *791 The italicized portion of this quotation suggests that the Solin court was simply reiterating the General Dynamics court’s statement that an attorney plaintiff may not establish a claim through the disclosure of privileged information. ( Solin, supra, 89 Cal.App.4th at pp. 457-458.) This is made clear by the Solin court’s citation to that portion of the General Dynamics opinion in which the Supreme Court stated: “[W]here the elements of a wrongful discharge in violation of fundamental pu

2007If [plaintiff] had reported the illegal activities of his co-workers, [he] may have achieved the ‘laudable goal’ of preventing crime, but this is not enough to fit within the narrow confines of wrongful termination in violation of public policy”].) 14 In sum, Carter’s “failure to identify a statutory or constitutional policy that would be thwarted by his . . . discharge dooms his cause of action.” (Turner, supra, 7 Cal.4th at p. 1257.) “Even if [EUHSD’s] decision was misguided or based on an erroneous factual premise, that would not eliminate the need for a clear expression of legislative poli

2007If [plaintiff] had reported the illegal activities of his co-workers, [he] may have achieved the ‘laudable goal’ of preventing crime, but this is not enough to fit within the narrow confines of wrongful termination in violation of public policy”].) 14 In sum, Carter’s “failure to identify a statutory or constitutional policy that would be thwarted by his . . . discharge dooms his cause of action.” (Turner, supra, 7 Cal.4th at p. 1257.) “Even if [EUHSD’s] decision was misguided or based on an erroneous factual premise, that would not eliminate the need for a clear expression of legislative poli

2004(Silo v. CHW Medical Foundation (2002) 27 Cal.4th 1097, 1104 [ 119 Cal.Rptr.2d 698 , 45 P.3d 1162 ].) The cases in which the courts have allowed a tortious claim for wrongful termination in violation of public policy generally fall into one of four categories, where the employee is discharged for: (1) refusal to violate a statute; (2) performing a statutory obligation; (3) exercising a statutory or constitutional right or privilege; or (4) reporting an alleged violation of a statute of public significance.

2004(Silo v. CHW Medical Foundation (2002) 27 Cal.4th 1097, 1104 [ 119 Cal.Rptr.2d 698 , 45 P.3d 1162 ].) The cases in which the courts have allowed a tortious claim for wrongful termination in violation of public policy generally fall into one of four categories, where the employee is discharged for: (1) refusal to violate a statute; (2) performing a statutory obligation; (3) exercising a statutory or constitutional right or privilege; or (4) reporting an alleged violation of a statute of public significance.

1998Gantt considered whether an employee stated a cause of action for wrongful discharge against public policy after his employer terminated him in retaliation for supporting a coworker's sexual harassment claim. ( Gantt, supra, 1 Cal.4th at pp. 1087-1089, 4 Cal.Rptr.2d 874 , 824 P.2d 680 .) The court recognized that public policy cases fall into one of four categories: the employee (1) refused to violate a statute; (2) performed a statutory obligation; (3) exercised a constitutional or statutory right or privilege; or (4) reported a statutory violation for the public's benefit. ( Id. at pp. 1090-

1998Gantt considered whether an employee stated a cause of action for wrongful discharge against public policy after his employer terminated him in retaliation for supporting a coworker's sexual harassment claim. ( Gantt, supra, 1 Cal.4th at pp. 1087-1089, 4 Cal.Rptr.2d 874 , 824 P.2d 680 .) The court recognized that public policy cases fall into one of four categories: the employee (1) refused to violate a statute; (2) performed a statutory obligation; (3) exercised a constitutional or statutory right or privilege; or (4) reported a statutory violation for the public's benefit. ( Id. at pp. 1090-

1997But “[o]ur function is not to judge the wisdom of statutes.” (Wells Fargo Bank v. Superior Court (1991) 53 Cal.3d 1082, 1099 [ 282 Cal.Rptr. 841 , 811 P.2d 1025 ].) Indeed, when this court established that only those public policies that had been articulated in a constitutional or statutory provision could support a wrongful discharge claim, one reason this court gave was “that courts should venture into this area, if at all, with great care and due deference to the judgment of the legislative branch, ‘lest they mistake their own predilections for public policy which deserves recognition at la

1997But “[o]ur function is not to judge the wisdom of statutes.” (Wells Fargo Bank v. Superior Court (1991) 53 Cal.3d 1082, 1099 [ 282 Cal.Rptr. 841 , 811 P.2d 1025 ].) Indeed, when this court established that only those public policies that had been articulated in a constitutional or statutory provision could support a wrongful discharge claim, one reason this court gave was “that courts should venture into this area, if at all, with great care and due deference to the judgment of the legislative branch, ‘lest they mistake their own predilections for public policy which deserves recognition at la