Termination

Subscribe to Termination via RSS

The California Supreme Court has ruled that an employer may terminate an employee for using marijuana for medical purposes.  In Ross v. RagingWire Telecommunications, Inc. the employee, Gary Ross, suffered from strain and muscle spasms in his back due to his service in the U.S. Air Force.  The employer, RagingWire, offered Mr. Ross a job, but required him to take a drug test.  Mr. Ross tested positive for marijuana use, and RagingWire terminated him as a result.  Mr. Ross filed a lawsuit claiming that RagingWire discriminated against him on the basis of his disability and wrongfully terminated him.Continue Reading CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT SAYS EMPLOYERS CAN SAY “NO!”

In Industrial Dielectric, 123 LA 822 (Arb 2006), a recent arbitration decision, an employer’s immediate reaction to an employee’s threatening actions towards the Vice President for Human Resources was closely scrutinized to determine whether the employer actually perceived the employee’s actions as a threat.  Specifically, at issue was whether termination of the employee who made threatening remarks was merely an after thought in an attempt to terminate a problem employee or a legitimate action based on an actual fear of a perceived threat.  This became an issue because the Vice-President of Human Resources’ actions at the time of the threat and through the time of the employee’s termination contradicted the employer’s contention that the actions were perceived as an actual threat.Continue Reading TERMINATION OF EMPLOYEE WHO MADE A THREAT IN THE WORKPLACE CALLED INTO QUESTION WHERE EMPLOYER’S REACTION SUGGESTED THAT STATEMENTS WERE NOT ACTUALLY PERCEIVED AS A THREAT

On August 3, 2006, the California Supreme Court decided the case of Dore v. Arnold Worldwide, Inc. The issue before the Court was whether the use of the phrase "at any time" to define the term "at will" in an offer letter made it ambiguous as to whether the employer could terminate the employee without cause.
Continue Reading California Supreme Court Confirms At-Will Means “At Any Time”

On July 10, 2006, the California Supreme Court issued its long-awaited decision in Smith v. L’Oreal. The Court found that an employee is "discharged" for purposes of Labor Code Section 201 (requiring immediate payment at discharge) and Section 203 (waiting time penalties) not just when an employee is involuntarily terminated from an ongoing employment relationship, but also when an employee is released after completing a job assignment or time duration for which the employee was hired. 
Continue Reading California Supreme Court Clarifies Standard For Employment “Discharge” For Imposition Of Waiting Time Penalties

In its opinion in Lujan v. Shala Minagar, filed on December 9, 2004 (Appeal No. B170438), the California Court of Appeal ruled that an employer is liable for retaliation in violation of California Labor Code section 6310 when it terminates an employee out of fear that the employee may, in the future, file a workplace safety complaint with a governmental agency, even though the employee never filed a complaint with the agency.
Continue Reading Termination for Fear of Complaint is Unlawful Retaliation