Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
8 California opinions name it 2 courts 1988–2010 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by California courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Foley v. Interactive Data Corp.green2 sentences2000What is vindicated through the cause of action is not the terms or promises arising out of the particular employment relationship involved, but rather the public interest in not permitting employers to impose as a condition of employment a requirement that an employee act in a manner contrary to fundamental public policy.” (Foley v. Interactive Data Corp. (1988) 47 Cal.3d 654, 667, fn. 7 [ 254 Cal.Rptr. 211 , 765 P.2d 373 ].) “The public policy must involve a subject which affects the public at large rather than a purely personal or proprietary interest of the plaintiff or employer. 2000What is vindicated through the cause of action is not the terms or promises arising out of the particular employment relationship involved, but rather the public interest in not permitting employers to impose as a condition of employment a requirement that an employee act in a manner contrary to fundamental public policy.” (Foley v. Interactive Data Corp. (1988) 47 Cal.3d 654, 667, fn. 7 [ 254 Cal.Rptr. 211 , 765 P.2d 373 ].) “The public policy must involve a subject which affects the public at large rather than a purely personal or proprietary interest of the plaintiff or employer. | 2 | 5 |
General Dynamics Corp. v. Superior Courtgreen2 sentences1996What is vindicated by the cause of action is the public interest in preventing employers from imposing as a condition of employment a requirement that an employee act contrary to fundamental public policy. ( General Dynamics Corp. v. Superior Court (1994) 7 Cal.4th 1164, 1180 [ 32 Cal. Rptr.2d 1 , 876 P.2d 487 ]; Foley, supra, 47 Cal.3d at p. 667 & fn. 7.) "[A]lthough the public policy served by the conduct of the aggrieved employee at issue may often be directly protective of the interest in employment itself, the doctrinal foundation of the public policy tort claim is not so much the plainti 1996What is vindicated by the cause of action is the public interest in preventing employers from imposing as a condition of employment a requirement that an employee act contrary to fundamental public policy. ( General Dynamics Corp. v. Superior Court (1994) 7 Cal.4th 1164, 1180 [ 32 Cal. Rptr.2d 1 , 876 P.2d 487 ]; Foley, supra, 47 Cal.3d at p. 667 & fn. 7.) "[A]lthough the public policy served by the conduct of the aggrieved employee at issue may often be directly protective of the interest in employment itself, the doctrinal foundation of the public policy tort claim is not so much the plainti | 2 | 2 |
Phillips v. Gemini Moving Specialistsgreen2 sentences2010For example, many statutes simply regulate conduct between private individuals, or impose requirements whose fulfillment does not implicate fundamental public policy concerns.’ [Citation.]” (Phillips v. Gemini Moving Specialists (1998) 63 Cal.App.4th 563, 570 [ 74 Cal.Rptr.2d 29 ] (Phillips).) “ ‘What is vindicated through the cause of action is not the terms or promises arising out of the particular employment relationship involved, but rather the public interest in not permitting employers to impose as a condition of employment a requirement that an employee act in a manner contrary to funda 2010For example, many statutes simply regulate conduct between private individuals, or impose requirements whose fulfillment does not implicate fundamental public policy concerns.’ [Citation.]” (Phillips v. Gemini Moving Specialists (1998) 63 Cal.App.4th 563, 570 [ 74 Cal.Rptr.2d 29 ] (Phillips).) “ ‘What is vindicated through the cause of action is not the terms or promises arising out of the particular employment relationship involved, but rather the public interest in not permitting employers to impose as a condition of employment a requirement that an employee act in a manner contrary to funda | 1 | 1 |
D'Sa v. Playhut, Inc.green2 sentences2010For example, many statutes simply regulate conduct between private individuals, or impose requirements whose fulfillment does not implicate fundamental public policy concerns.’ [Citation.]” (Phillips v. Gemini Moving Specialists (1998) 63 Cal.App.4th 563, 570 [ 74 Cal.Rptr.2d 29 ] (Phillips).) “ ‘What is vindicated through the cause of action is not the terms or promises arising out of the particular employment relationship involved, but rather the public interest in not permitting employers to impose as a condition of employment a requirement that an employee act in a manner contrary to funda 2010For example, many statutes simply regulate conduct between private individuals, or impose requirements whose fulfillment does not implicate fundamental public policy concerns.’ [Citation.]” (Phillips v. Gemini Moving Specialists (1998) 63 Cal.App.4th 563, 570 [ 74 Cal.Rptr.2d 29 ] (Phillips).) “ ‘What is vindicated through the cause of action is not the terms or promises arising out of the particular employment relationship involved, but rather the public interest in not permitting employers to impose as a condition of employment a requirement that an employee act in a manner contrary to funda | 1 | 1 |
Parada v. City of Coltongreen2 sentences2000The policy must also be fundamental, substantial and well established at the time of discharge.” (Parada v. City of Colton (1994) 24 Cal.App.4th 356, 363 [ 29 Cal.Rptr.2d 309 ], citing Gantt.) “[C]ourts in wrongful discharge actions may not declare public policy without a basis in either constitutional or statutory provisions. 2000The policy must also be fundamental, substantial and well established at the time of discharge.” (Parada v. City of Colton (1994) 24 Cal.App.4th 356, 363 [ 29 Cal.Rptr.2d 309 ], citing Gantt.) “[C]ourts in wrongful discharge actions may not declare public policy without a basis in either constitutional or statutory provisions. | 1 | 1 |
Badih v. Myersgreen2 sentences1996For example, the wrongful termination action protects an employee's rights to refuse to participate in illegal behavior, perform a statutory obligation, exercise a statutory right or privilege, or report an alleged violation of a statute of public importance. *1209 ( Gantt, supra, at pp. 1090-1091 and cases cited.) It also protects an employee's right to be free from sexual harassment in the workplace (see, e.g., Rojo v. Kliger (1990) 52 Cal.3d 65, 91 [ 276 Cal. Rptr. 130 , 801 P.2d 373 ]) and from employment discrimination based on pregnancy ( Badih v. Myers (1995) 36 Cal. App.4th 1289, 1292- 1996For example, the wrongful termination action protects an employee's rights to refuse to participate in illegal behavior, perform a statutory obligation, exercise a statutory right or privilege, or report an alleged violation of a statute of public importance. *1209 ( Gantt, supra, at pp. 1090-1091 and cases cited.) It also protects an employee's right to be free from sexual harassment in the workplace (see, e.g., Rojo v. Kliger (1990) 52 Cal.3d 65, 91 [ 276 Cal. Rptr. 130 , 801 P.2d 373 ]) and from employment discrimination based on pregnancy ( Badih v. Myers (1995) 36 Cal. App.4th 1289, 1292- | 1 | 1 |
Leibert v. Transworld Systems, Inc.green2 sentences1996For example, the wrongful termination action protects an employee's rights to refuse to participate in illegal behavior, perform a statutory obligation, exercise a statutory right or privilege, or report an alleged violation of a statute of public importance. *1209 ( Gantt, supra, at pp. 1090-1091 and cases cited.) It also protects an employee's right to be free from sexual harassment in the workplace (see, e.g., Rojo v. Kliger (1990) 52 Cal.3d 65, 91 [ 276 Cal. Rptr. 130 , 801 P.2d 373 ]) and from employment discrimination based on pregnancy ( Badih v. Myers (1995) 36 Cal. App.4th 1289, 1292- 1996For example, the wrongful termination action protects an employee's rights to refuse to participate in illegal behavior, perform a statutory obligation, exercise a statutory right or privilege, or report an alleged violation of a statute of public importance. *1209 ( Gantt, supra, at pp. 1090-1091 and cases cited.) It also protects an employee's right to be free from sexual harassment in the workplace (see, e.g., Rojo v. Kliger (1990) 52 Cal.3d 65, 91 [ 276 Cal. Rptr. 130 , 801 P.2d 373 ]) and from employment discrimination based on pregnancy ( Badih v. Myers (1995) 36 Cal. App.4th 1289, 1292- | 1 | 1 |
Hunter v. Up-Right, Inc.green2 sentences1996What is vindicated by the cause of action is the public interest in preventing employers from imposing as a condition of employment a requirement that an employee act contrary to fundamental public policy. ( General Dynamics Corp. v. Superior Court (1994) 7 Cal.4th 1164, 1180 [ 32 Cal. Rptr.2d 1 , 876 P.2d 487 ]; Foley, supra, 47 Cal.3d at p. 667 & fn. 7.) "[A]lthough the public policy served by the conduct of the aggrieved employee at issue may often be directly protective of the interest in employment itself, the doctrinal foundation of the public policy tort claim is not so much the plainti 1996What is vindicated by the cause of action is the public interest in preventing employers from imposing as a condition of employment a requirement that an employee act contrary to fundamental public policy. ( General Dynamics Corp. v. Superior Court (1994) 7 Cal.4th 1164, 1180 [ 32 Cal. Rptr.2d 1 , 876 P.2d 487 ]; Foley, supra, 47 Cal.3d at p. 667 & fn. 7.) "[A]lthough the public policy served by the conduct of the aggrieved employee at issue may often be directly protective of the interest in employment itself, the doctrinal foundation of the public policy tort claim is not so much the plainti | 1 | 1 |
Rojo v. Kligergreen2 sentences1996For example, the wrongful termination action protects an employee's rights to refuse to participate in illegal behavior, perform a statutory obligation, exercise a statutory right or privilege, or report an alleged violation of a statute of public importance. *1209 ( Gantt, supra, at pp. 1090-1091 and cases cited.) It also protects an employee's right to be free from sexual harassment in the workplace (see, e.g., Rojo v. Kliger (1990) 52 Cal.3d 65, 91 [ 276 Cal. Rptr. 130 , 801 P.2d 373 ]) and from employment discrimination based on pregnancy ( Badih v. Myers (1995) 36 Cal. App.4th 1289, 1292- 1996For example, the wrongful termination action protects an employee's rights to refuse to participate in illegal behavior, perform a statutory obligation, exercise a statutory right or privilege, or report an alleged violation of a statute of public importance. *1209 ( Gantt, supra, at pp. 1090-1091 and cases cited.) It also protects an employee's right to be free from sexual harassment in the workplace (see, e.g., Rojo v. Kliger (1990) 52 Cal.3d 65, 91 [ 276 Cal. Rptr. 130 , 801 P.2d 373 ]) and from employment discrimination based on pregnancy ( Badih v. Myers (1995) 36 Cal. App.4th 1289, 1292- | 1 | 1 |
Blank v. Kirwangreen2 sentences1988In reviewing a judgment following the sustaining of a demurrer without leave to amend, however, we must accept the truth of the matters pleaded (see ante, pp. 662-663), and take into account the possibility of amendment consistent with that pleading. ( Blank v. Kirwin (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 318 [ 216 Cal. Rptr. 718 , 703 P.2d 58 ].) [10] By contrast, Labor Code section 1102.5, subdivision (b) prohibits an employer from retaliating "against an employee for disclosing information to a government or law enforcement agency, where the employee has reasonable cause to believe that the information dis 1988In reviewing a judgment following the sustaining of a demurrer without leave to amend, however, we must accept the truth of the matters pleaded (see ante, pp. 662-663), and take into account the possibility of amendment consistent with that pleading. ( Blank v. Kirwin (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 318 [ 216 Cal. Rptr. 718 , 703 P.2d 58 ].) [10] By contrast, Labor Code section 1102.5, subdivision (b) prohibits an employer from retaliating "against an employee for disclosing information to a government or law enforcement agency, where the employee has reasonable cause to believe that the information dis | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Petermann v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Local 396
green
2 sentences1990(See, e.g., Tameny v. Atlantic Richfield Co., supra, 27 Cal.3d 167 [tort action for wrongful discharge may lie if the employer conditions employment upon required participation in unlawful price fixing by the employee]; Foley v. Interactive Data Corp. (1988) 47 Cal.3d 654 [ 254 Cal.Rptr. 211 , 765 P.2d 373 ] [reaffirmed validity of wrongful discharge causes of action in tort because they vindicate the public interest by not permitting employers to impose as a condition of employment a requirement that an employee act in a manner contrary to fundamental public policy]; Petermann v. Internationa 1990(See, e.g., Tameny v. Atlantic Richfield Co., supra, 27 Cal.3d 167 [tort action for wrongful discharge may lie if the employer conditions employment upon required participation in unlawful price fixing by the employee]; Foley v. Interactive Data Corp. (1988) 47 Cal.3d 654 [ 254 Cal.Rptr. 211 , 765 P.2d 373 ] [reaffirmed validity of wrongful discharge causes of action in tort because they vindicate the public interest by not permitting employers to impose as a condition of employment a requirement that an employee act in a manner contrary to fundamental public policy]; Petermann v. Internationa | 2 | 1988–1990 |
Tameny v. Atlantic Richfield Co.
green
2 sentences1990(See, e.g., Tameny v. Atlantic Richfield Co., supra, 27 Cal.3d 167 [tort action for wrongful discharge may lie if the employer conditions employment upon required participation in unlawful price fixing by the employee]; Foley v. Interactive Data Corp. (1988) 47 Cal.3d 654 [ 254 Cal. Rptr. 211 , 765 P.2d 373 ] [reaffirmed validity of wrongful discharge causes of action in tort because they vindicate the public interest by not permitting employers to impose as a condition of employment a requirement that an employee act in a manner contrary to fundamental public policy]; Petermann v. Internation 1990(See, e.g., Tameny v. Atlantic Richfield Co., supra, 27 Cal.3d 167 [tort action for wrongful discharge may lie if the employer conditions employment upon required participation in unlawful price fixing by the employee]; Foley v. Interactive Data Corp. (1988) 47 Cal.3d 654 [ 254 Cal.Rptr. 211 , 765 P.2d 373 ] [reaffirmed validity of wrongful discharge causes of action in tort because they vindicate the public interest by not permitting employers to impose as a condition of employment a requirement that an employee act in a manner contrary to fundamental public policy]; Petermann v. Internationa | 2 | 1988–1990 |
Gantt v. Sentry Insurance
green
2 sentences1998“What is vindicated through the [Tameny] cause of action is not the terms or promises arising out of the particular employment relationship involved, but rather the public interest in not permitting employers to impose *570 as a condition of employment a requirement that an employee act in a manner contrary to fundamental public policy.” (Foley, supra, 47 Cal.3d at p. 667, fn. 7 .) “[E]mployees discharged in violation of fundamental public policy may bring an action against their employers sounding in tort.” {Gantt, supra, 1 Cal.4th at p. 1098 .) For this reason, Tameny causes of action are no 1998(Ibid.) In deciding whether an employee’s cause of action for wrongful termination in violation of public policy has merit, courts seek to distinguish between “claims that genuinely involve matters of public policy, and those that concern merely ordinary disputes between employer and employee.” (Gantt, supra, 1 Cal.4th at p. 1090 .) “[T]he policy in question must involve a matter that affects society at large rather than a purely personal or proprietary interest of the plaintiff or employer; in addition, the policy must be ‘fundamental,’ ‘substantial’ and ‘well established’ at the time of the | 1 | 1998–1998 |
Smith v. Brown-Forman Distillers Corp.
green
2 sentences1997This is further illustrated by constructive discharge law, which expressly protects an employee who quits after being subjected to a continuous pattern of adverse working conditions. 4 As shown by Smith v. Brown-Forman Distillers Corp. (1987) 196 Cal.App.3d 503 [ 241 Cal.Rptr. 916 ], intolerable conditions may arise when an employee has been required to violate the law at the employer’s direction. 1997This is further illustrated by constructive discharge law, which expressly protects an employee who quits after being subjected to a continuous pattern of adverse working conditions. 4 As shown by Smith v. Brown-Forman Distillers Corp. (1987) 196 Cal.App.3d 503 [ 241 Cal.Rptr. 916 ], intolerable conditions may arise when an employee has been required to violate the law at the employer’s direction. | 1 | 1997–1997 |
Dabbs v. Cardiopulmonary Management Services
green
2 sentences1990Corp. (1986) 187 Cal.App.3d 1556 ] [ 232 Cal.Rptr. 490 [disciplinary action taken against employee for reporting to authorities policy of overcharging time inappropriate]; Dabbs v. Cardiopulmonary Management Services (1987) 188 Cal.App.3d 1437 [ 234 Cal.Rptr. 129 ] [employee wrongfully discharged in retaliation for refusing to continue to work in conditions which endangered health and safety of patients under her care].) To allow employers to impose illegal work rules as a condition of employment or to allow employers to discharge employees for failing to abide by these illegal requirements wo 1990Corp. (1986) 187 Cal.App.3d 1556 ] [ 232 Cal.Rptr. 490 [disciplinary action taken against employee for reporting to authorities policy of overcharging time inappropriate]; Dabbs v. Cardiopulmonary Management Services (1987) 188 Cal.App.3d 1437 [ 234 Cal.Rptr. 129 ] [employee wrongfully discharged in retaliation for refusing to continue to work in conditions which endangered health and safety of patients under her care].) To allow employers to impose illegal work rules as a condition of employment or to allow employers to discharge employees for failing to abide by these illegal requirements wo | 1 | 1990–1990 |
Garcia v. Rockwell Internat. Corp.
green
2 sentences1990Corp. (1986) 187 Cal.App.3d 1556 ] [ 232 Cal.Rptr. 490 [disciplinary action taken against employee for reporting to authorities policy of overcharging time inappropriate]; Dabbs v. Cardiopulmonary Management Services (1987) 188 Cal.App.3d 1437 [ 234 Cal.Rptr. 129 ] [employee wrongfully discharged in retaliation for refusing to continue to work in conditions which endangered health and safety of patients under her care].) To allow employers to impose illegal work rules as a condition of employment or to allow employers to discharge employees for failing to abide by these illegal requirements wo 1990Corp. (1986) 187 Cal.App.3d 1556 ] [ 232 Cal.Rptr. 490 [disciplinary action taken against employee for reporting to authorities policy of overcharging time inappropriate]; Dabbs v. Cardiopulmonary Management Services (1987) 188 Cal.App.3d 1437 [ 234 Cal.Rptr. 129 ] [employee wrongfully discharged in retaliation for refusing to continue to work in conditions which endangered health and safety of patients under her care].) To allow employers to impose illegal work rules as a condition of employment or to allow employers to discharge employees for failing to abide by these illegal requirements wo | 1 | 1990–1990 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.