California--implied contract via employee handbook

bears00 wrote:Is there a statement ANYWHERE in the handbook that reads something to the effect of "nothing in this document is intended to create any contract of employment, expressed or implied?"

JoeC (McGruff) wrote:Well keep looking usually a paralegal or intake specialist does what is know as an intake over the phone (no charge). The attorney reviews the intake (no charge) if the case has merit you are called in for an initial consultation (usually no charge). If after that the case has merit fees are discussed. If the case is good the fee is contingent. If the case is hopeless the attorney will let you know after the consultation.

JoeC (McGruff) wrote:No buzz words just tell them the story they ask questions answer the questions honestly.
JoeC

bears00 wrote:Just look for things in your handbook that IMPLY that you will be there at some point in the future.

Tameny v Atlantic Richfield Co. (1980) 27 Cal 3d 167, 164 Cal Rptr 839, 610 P2d 1330, 115 BNA
LRRM 3119, 1980-2 CCH Trade Cases ¶63378, 9 ALR4th 314.
See Tameny, at n. 12.
Cleary v American Airlines, Inc. (1980, 2d Dist) 111 Cal App 3d 443, 168 Cal Rptr 722, 115 BNA
LRRM 3030.
Pugh v See's Candies, Inc. (1981, 1st Dist) 116 Cal App 3d 311, 171 Cal Rptr 917, 115 BNA
LRRM 4002.
Seaman's Direct Buying Service, Inc. v Standard Oil Co. (1984) 36 Cal 3d 752, 206 Cal Rptr 354,
686 P2d 1158, 39 UCCRS 46.
Tameny v Atlantic Richfield Co. (1980) 27 Cal 3d 167, 164 Cal Rptr 839, 610 P2d 1330, 115 BNA
LRRM 3119, 1980-2 CCH Trade Cases ¶63378, 9 ALR4th 314.
Seaman's Direct Buying Service, Inc. v Standard Oil Co. (1984) 36 Cal 3d 752, 206 Cal Rptr 354,
686 P2d 1158, 39 UCCRS 46.
Wallis v Superior Court (1984, 4th Dist) 160 Cal App 3d 1109, 207 Cal Rptr 123.

However, in Clutterham v Coachmen Industries, Inc. (1985, 2d Dist) 169 Cal App 3d 1223, 215
Cal Rptr 795, the court held that the implied covenant does not require an employer to offer such a
termination benefit to an employee about to be discharged due to a plant closing where legitimate reasons exist for ceasing operations. Under such conditions, the covenant does not require that the employer give the employee's financial interests as much consideration as it gives its own.
See Khanna v Microdata Corp. (1985, 1st Dist) 170 Cal App 3d 250, 215 Cal Rptr 860, 120 BNA
LRRM 2152.

It has been common in California to speak of separate tort causes of action in wrongful discharge
cases when the plaintiff's claims are independently based upon the public policy exception and upon a
violation of the implied covenant. Further distinctions are made between a cause of action for breach of the employment contract, and a cause of action for breach of an implied promise not to terminate an at-will employee except for cause. See, for example, Koehrer v Superior Court (1986, 4th Dist) 181 Cal App 3d 1155, 226 Cal Rptr 820; Khanna v Microdata Corp. (1985, 1st Dist) 170 Cal App 3d 250, 215 Cal Rptr 860, 120 BNA LRRM 2152. Only a distinction between a cause of action for breach of the contract itself, under which a breach of the implied-in-fact promise should be subsumed, and a cause of action for the tort of wrongful discharge, under which the public policy and bad faith claims are alternate theories of recovery, is technically appropriate, however. For example, in 999 v C.I.T. Corp. (1985, CA9 Cal) 776 F2d 866, 3 FR Serv 3d 923, the court held that the trial court had not erred by instructing the jury on breach of the implied covenant in an action on the contract (no tort damages were claimed), where the issue was presented to the jury as an alternate theory of recovery and the jury was also admonished not to award double damages for breach of contract. Whether the tort action is based upon a violation of public policy or a breach of the implied covenant, or even the intentional infliction of emotional distress, they are but alternate theories by which the claim may be asserted. Tameny v Atlantic Richfield Co. (1980) 27 Cal 3d 167, 164 Cal Rptr 839, 610 P2d 1330, 115 BNA LRRM 3119, 1980-2 CCH Trade Cases ¶63378, 9 ALR4th 314.

JoeC (McGruff) wrote:Whether your situation meets an implied contract theory would depend on the wording in the handbook. This is something you really cant do your self. However the award you are after reinstatement is doable out of court during the pretrial litigation phase, with an attorney depending on how the facts roll out. You should seek an attorney in your state. Tell him your interested in restatement with back pay,and attorney fees and see where it goes.
JoeC

One question you didn't answer that is pressing on my mind after meeting with this lawyer the other night.
Time. How long do I have to start a case before the other side can try to get it tossed out for being too long ago. on the 'bad reason' the lawyer honed in on he said that was one year. after that I could file but they could get it tossed and likely would.