stating that “[a]n employee discharged for refusing to engage in illegal conduct 16 at his employer's request may bring a tort action for wrongful discharge,” and discussing 17 the common law origins of this claim in California
How later courts described this case
- stating that “[a]n employee discharged for refusing to engage in illegal conduct 16 at his employer's request may bring a tort action for wrongful discharge,” and discussing 17 the common law origins of this claim in California
- holding that “when an employer’s discharge of an employee 14 violates fundamental principles of public policy, the discharged employee may maintain a 15 tort action and recover damages traditionally available in such actions”
- holding that “when an employer’s discharge of an employee violates fundamental principles of public policy, the discharged employee may maintain a tort action and recover damages traditionally available in such actions”
- holding that at-will employees may recover tort damages from employers if they can show they were discharged in contravention of fundamental public policy
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
MANUEL, J.
I concur in the judgment.
In my view the cause of action here in question flows from a clear statutory source—i.e., the provisions of section 2856 of the Labor Code. (Cf. Montalvo v. Zamora (1970) 7 Cal.App.3d 69, 73-75 [ 86 Cal.Rptr. 401 ].) Accordingly, I see no reason to search further for it among the vague and ill-defined dictates of “fundamental public policy.”