Green v. Ralee Eng'g Co. - 19 Cal. 4th 66, 78 Cal. Rptr. 2d 16, 960 P.2d 1046 (1998)

Rule:

An employer's right to discharge an at-will employee is subject to limits that fundamental public policy imposes.

Facts:

Defendant, Ralee Eng'g Co., manufactures fuselage and wing components for military and civilian aircraft. It supplies those parts to major airline assembly companies such as Boeing and to major war plane assembly companies such as Northrop. In 1968, defendant hired plaintiff as a quality control inspector. Plaintiff was an at-will employee, and, as such, could be discharged at any time, and for any reason not otherwise prohibited by law. Defendant shut down its night shift then discharged plaintiff along with other night shift employees. Plaintiff filed a timely wrongful termination action against defendant. He alleged defendant terminated him in retaliation for his complaints about its inspection practices. Plaintiff also claimed his complaints served a broad public policy favoring aviation safety, entitling him to tort damages even though he was an at-will employee. The trial court granted summary judgment in defendant's favor. It stated that plaintiff was an at-will employee whom defendant could discharge without cause. (§ 2922.) Plaintiff appealed, and the Court of Appeal reversed the judgment. Defendant sought review of a judgment from the Court of Appeal that reversed a grant of summary judgment in its favor in wrongful discharge action brought by plaintiff at-will employee. Defendant asserted that plaintiff, who relied on administrative regulations, failed to assert a constitutional or statutory source of fundamental public policy that would limit right to discharge an at-will employee.

Issue:

May administrative regulations be a source of fundamental public policy that limits an employer's right to discharge an otherwise at-will employee?

Answer:

Yes. The court granted the appellate court’s judgment.

Conclusion:

The court affirmed a judgment that reversed the grant of summary judgment in favor of defendant airline part manufacturer in wrongful discharge claim brought by plaintiff at-will employee. The court agreed that administrative regulations governing airline safety, which implemented the Federal Aviation Act of 1958, 49 U.S.C.S. § 40101 et seq., were a source of fundamental public policy that limited an employer's right to discharge an otherwise at-will employee. The court further held that an at-will employee could assert a Tameny claim based on statutorily authorized regulations as long as they were tethered to statutory provisions that served a public policy. Moreover, the court stated that these regulations governed important safety policies affecting the public at large and did not merely serve either the employee's or employer's personal or proprietary interest.