WORKPLACE LAW - Worried Worker
Question:
My employer’s handbook says that I am an at-will employee, but it does not specify that I can be terminated for cause or no cause. In the job interview I was told that the employer was looking for a long-term employee and that I would have a great future with them. Can I only be fired for cause?
Answer:
At-will employment is defined in California Labor Code section 2922 as an employment, having no specified term, which may be terminated at the will of either party on notice to the other. The California Supreme Court recently provided more guidance on what an employer’s at-will employment policy must include and held that it does not need to specify that the employee can be terminated for cause or no cause.
In Dore v. Arnold Worldwide, Inc., Mr. Dore interviewed for a management supervisor position and was not told in the interview that his employment would be terminable without cause or at-will. He was told, however, that the employer needed an employee to handle an account on a long-term basis. The interviewer informed him that he would “play a critical role in growing the agency,” and that the company was looking for “a long-term fix, not a Band-Aid.” The interviewer also mentioned that employees “were treated like family.” He was then offered the position by telephone, and he orally accepted.
Mr. Dore later received an offer letter from the employer stating that he would have a 90-day assessment with his supervisor, would get an annual review, and that after his performance was assessed, he and his supervisor would have an opportunity to discuss consideration for being named an officer for the company. In a separate paragraph, the letter stated “your employment with Arnold Communications is at-will. This simply means that Arnold Communications has the right to terminate your employment at any time just as you have the right to terminate your employment with Arnold Communication, Inc. at any time.” Mr. Dore read and signed the letter. Two years later he was terminated without cause. He sued.
In the lawsuit, Mr. Dore claimed that in spite of the at-will provision in the written employment contract, he could only be terminated for cause. His belief was based on various oral representations that were made to him, as well as the employer’s conduct, and documents such as the offer letter discussing his future opportunities with the employer. He asserted that the employment letter did not contain a clear and unambiguous agreement that his employment would be terminable without cause, and that the statement that his employment was “at-will” and could be terminated at any time meant that the employer had the right to terminate him only for cause.
The California Supreme Court disagreed. The Court noted that “as a matter of simple logic” a designation of employment as “at-will” means “with or without cause.” It also pointed out that the fact that the employer’s letter stated that it would provide Mr. Dore with a 90-day assessment and annual review did not expressly or impliedly confer on him the right to be terminated only for cause. Additionally, the Court held that the statements that Mr. Dore’s role would be critical, that the company needed a long-term fix, and that it wanted him to build a relationship with an important new client, did not support an inference that Mr. Dore reasonably understood the employment letter to be a promise not to terminate him without cause.
Despite the Court’s decision, employers are still encouraged to make the at-will clause in employment agreements, policies and handbooks as clear as possible to avoid claims of ambiguity by employees. Nevertheless, it appears that the wording of your employer’s policy would allow it to terminate you with or without cause.- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Back to Menu- Work Place Law 2006 Articles