Under California Labor Code section 2929 it is unlawful for an employer to discharge an employee for the payment of one judgment of threatened garnishment. The law defines "garnishment" as any judicial procedure through which the employee's wages are required to be withheld for the payment of any debt. The term "wages" includes "all amounts for labor performed by employees of every description," whether the amount is fixed or calculated on the basis of time, task, piece, commission, or other method. Cal. Labor Code 200(a) & 2929(a)(2).
If the employee is fired in violation of section 2929, his wages continue until reinstatement or until 30 days have elapsed. Generally, the recovery is limited to the wages the employee would have earned during the 30 days preceding the levy of execution on the garnishment order. An employee who wants to have the Labor Commissioner take an assignment of the claim must file it with the Commissioner within 60 days after discharge. However, a discharged employee cannot sue the employer if a criminal prosecution based on the same discharge has been commenced under the federal Act. Section 2929 does not affect any other rights that the employee may have against the employer for wrongful termination, including claims for discrimination, retaliation, harassment and alike.
Although the vast majority of the private sector workers in California are at-will employees and can be terminated for any reason, no reason, or arbitrary reason, as long as it's not an illegal reason, a number of employees have a contract with their employer which limits the employer's rights to terminate and require showing of "cause" or "good cause" for termination. Thus, practically all union members can be only terminated for "just cause" as their collective bargaining agreement provides. In addition, some employment contracts provide that the employee will be employed for a specified term and cannot be terminated except for cause. Usually "cause" means gross and/or intentional misconduct, such as fraud, theft, willful violation of company policy, competition or disclosing confidential information to competitors, etc.
The law on the meaning of "good cause" termination is ambivalent. On one hand it provides significant protection to employees whose employment is governed by this term. On the other hand, it gives a significant leverage to the employer. It is important to understand that the employer does not need to prove that the misconduct giving ground to contract termination actually took place. It only needs to show that in discharging the employee, it was acting for a purpose relating to its business needs or goals, rather than for a wrongful motive or reasons. Cotrans v. Rollins Hudig Hall Int'l (1998). The courts generally defer to the employer's good faith exercise of its managerial discretion, although that discretion is not unlimited.
Under the leading on the issue Cotrans case standard, three factual determinations are relevant to the question of employer's liability in good cause discharge claims:
(1) whether the employer acted in good faith in deciding to terminate the employee;
(2) whether the decision followed an adequate investigation; and
(3) whether the employer had reasonable grounds for believing the charges against the employee were true.
"Adequate investigation" means that at a minimum, the employer should listen to both sides. That is - give the employee a fair opportunity to preset his position and to correct or contradict relevant statements or information. It is also important that any investigation taking place is conducted by neutral, unbiased personnel members who have no interest in the outcome of that investigation. Interviewing a large number of co-workers and other witnesses of the alleged misconduct will also make the investigation more valuable and complete, protecting the employer from liability and assuring that the results of the investigation are more reliable.
The California employment and wrongful termination law is one of the areas of law which the typical employee have the greatest misunderstanding about. Many employees believe that just because they feel they are treated unfairly, or their boss is rude to them, they suffer from "hostile" work environment, not realizing that the term "hostile" has a specific meaning in the world of employment law, which is very different from the ordinary meaning of the same word.
On the street, anyone or anything that is non-friendly, can be classified as hostile. In the world of California employment, having a hostile work environment claim requires a showing of specific, repeated and sufficiently severe misconduct by an employer or his agents that objectively and significantly alters the working conditions of the victim. The same applies to the term "harassment." The non-legal definition is much broader, as any (repeated) act to irritate, annoy, or threaten some may be legitimately called harassment. Under California Fair Employment and Housing Act, however, the standard required to show harassment is much higher. Among other things, the conduct complained of has to be sufficiently "severe and pervasive" by the objective standard, and must also be motivated by the fact that the victim belongs to one of the protected classes (ethnic, religious or sexual orientation group, disability or medical condition, etc.)
The above are just few examples of typical misconceptions about the worker rights laws in California. The same applies to employment terminating claims. The vast majority of firings, as cruel and unfair as they might be - do not violate the law and thus are not wrongful (although might very well be wrong). A typical example of wrong termination which is not "wrongful" is termination caused by the personal animosity of a manger toward the terminated employee. Being mistreated or being disliked by your supervisor and even being terminated because of personality conflict between you and your superiors is usually not illegal, unless you have a contract of employment for a set period of time, which hasn't yet expired at the time of your termination, or unless you a member of the union, and are thus likely covered by the collective bargaining agreement, that usually limits the employer's ability to terminate an employee, requiring showing good cause or just cause for termination.
One of the most common reasons that managers and supervisors retaliate against their employees is because they complain about harassment by the same manager/supervisor to higher ranked executive. None of us like the complainer - someone who goes "behind our back" to tell on us to someone who has power over us. However, while in social situations saying negative things about someone might be rude and unacceptable, an aggrieved employee who feels helpless to resolve his issues at workplace with his/her immediate supervisor usually doesn't have a choice - the only person who he can and must turn to, as per the company's policies, is his boss' boss. This often leads to attempts by the worker's supervisor to retaliate against the complainant. Most supervisors no that retaliation (one kind of retaliation is taking adverse action against an employee because he complained about sexual or gender harassment, or harassment due to one's race or disability) at workplace is illegal in California, and therefore they will try to make the worker's life harder in more subtle but equally painful ways, such as issuing unfounded negative performance reviews, falsely accusing an employee of misconduct or even violence at workplace and otherwise trying to build a record or a paper trial to get rid of the employee.
If you enjoy your work and your workplace, and there is only one or two "rotten apples" that try to retaliate against you for your complaint, it is important that you discuss this situation with an experienced employment lawyer, with whom you would be able to come up with a strategy to deal with your specific situation, considering all the unique facts and circumstances of your career and workplace. Even though I am making a living out of both suing and defending employers, I firmly believe and convey to my clients that a job is better than a lawsuit a no job.
