California law provides for employment at will unless otherwise agreed. As a result, an employer may believe that he is free to terminate an employee at any time and for any or no reason.
The reality is much more complicated. Over time, a variety of limitations and exceptions to at-will employment have accumulated. An employer who decides to fire a worker should not be lulled into a false sense of security that the at-will doctrine will protect them against a wrongful termination lawsuit.
Implied Agreement
At-will employment may be denied by an implied agreement not to discharge an employee without good cause. The employer’s written or verbal representations of continued employment, other employer statements creating an expectation of job security, or the establishment of a progressive disciplinary policy may create such an implied agreement.
Discrimination
An employer cannot fire an employee because of their race, gender, age, religion, ethnicity, national origin, disability, or sexual orientation. Because the protected features are so numerous, it is likely that one or more of them will apply to most employees. Therefore, an employee will often be in a position to at least claim that a termination is based on unlawful discrimination.
Public politics
An employer may not terminate an employee in violation of a fundamental and substantial public policy. Such cases generally involve terminations based on an employee:
- Refusal to break the law at the request of the employer;
- Execution of a legal obligation;
- Exercising a constitutional or statutory right or privilege (eg, seeking a reasonable accommodation for a disability; taking legal family, pregnancy, or medical leave; filing a workers’ compensation claim); Prayed
- Complain or report a legal violation (eg, employment discrimination, sexual or racial harassment, wage or overtime violations, workplace safety violations).
Burden of proof
The at-will doctrine is further undermined by the way the burden of proof is assigned in wrongful termination laws. The employee bears the initial burden of establishing that (1) he or she is in a class protected by the “discrimination” or “public policy” principles discussed above, and (2) there is some causal connection between his or her protected status and the termination. of employment (for example, the termination occurred shortly after the employee filed a workers’ compensation claim or complained of labor law violations). If the employee meets that burden, then the burden shifts to the employer to present a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for termination.
In light of these limitations, “employment at will” can often be more myth than reality. Therefore, an employer must follow carefully designed employment practices to lessen the risk of being successfully sued by a terminated employee.