stating that, “[i]n the employment context, 14 factors apart from consideration and express terms may be used to ascertain the existence and 15 content of an employment agreement, including ‘the personnel policies or practices of the 16 employer, the employee’s longevity of service, actions or communications by the employer 17 reflecting assurances of continued employment, and the practices of the industry in which the 18 employee is engaged’”
How later courts described this case
- stating that, “[i]n the employment context, 14 factors apart from consideration and express terms may be used to ascertain the existence and 15 content of an employment agreement, including ‘the personnel policies or practices of the 16 employer, the employee’s longevity of service, actions or communications by the employer 17 reflecting assurances of continued employment, and the practices of the industry in which the 18 employee is engaged’”
- concluding that reporting that a 11 new employee was under investigation for embezzlement at a prior employer would only 12 serve the private interest of the employer and therefore did not constitute a public policy 13 violation
- holding that compensation for breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, in all contexts outside of insurance contracts, “has almost always been limited to contract rather than tort remedies”
- holding that in the employment context, cause of action seeking tort remedies for breach of implied covenant is not permitted; recovery for breach of this covenant is limited to contract remedies
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
MOSK, J.
I dissent.
I am in agreement with the opinions of Justices Broussard and Kaufman with one significant exception: I am unwilling to accept their concurrence in part I of the majority opinion.
When an employee learns that one in a supervisorial position is an embezzler, he has the choice of two immediate courses of action. He can remain silent and thus avoid the enmity of the embezzler and embarrassment to the employer. That apparently is the approach preferred by my colleagues in order to assure the employee’s retention of his job. Or, as a dutiful employee concerned with the image of his company, he can report *724 his knowledge to the employer. That is the course of action I would encourage.
My colleagues insist that reporting the presence of an embezzler to an employer is solely to the benefit of the employer. While undoubtedly it is to the employer’s benefit, it is not exclusively so. It is my opinion that such action—i.e., advising a state-created corporation of the employ in a supervisorial position of a person chargeable with a potential felony—is in the best interests of society as a whole, and therefore covered by the public policy rule.
Under Labor Code section 1102.5, subdivision (b), an employer is prohibited from retaliating against an employee for disclosing information to a law enforcement agency when there is reasonable cause to believe a violation of state or federal laws has been committed. It seems incongruous to permit retaliation and discharge when the employee chooses to go directly to his employer with the information, rather than to circumvent the employer, go behind his back and directly to a public agency. In either event, it seems clear to me that the law and public policy are implicated.
With that one exception, I agree with the persuasive opinions of Justices Broussard and Kaufman.