May It Please The Court: Weblog of legal news and observations, including a quote of the day and daily updates

Skip To Content

MIPTC Author:

Bookstore:


Listed in Latino Who's Who, June 2014
 Attorney
Categories [more]
General (1982)
Lawyer 2 Lawyer (283)
Latest Blogs
This Month's Posts [more]
S
M
T
W
T
F
S
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Links of Interest [more]
Locations of visitors to this page

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.


Quote of the Day - Every time I walk down the street people are screaming, 'You're fired!' - Donald Trump
Adjust font size: A A+ A++
Claim Your Profile on Avvo

*At Will* In An Employment Contract Means Termination Without Cause

Yesterday, the California Supreme Court ruled in the Dore v. Arnold Worldwide, Inc. case that an employment contract containing an "at will" clause and without a definite term for employment means that either an employer or an employee can terminate that contract without cause and without explanation.  The particular contract in issue in this case included a provision that the termination could occur "at any time."

Previously, the courts of appeal in California were split whether that additional term should be interpreted to mean the contract required 'cause' before an employee could be terminated.  Disagreement existed whether 'at any time" meant that there was some undefined length of employment, requiring notice and good reason before terminating an employee.

Those disagreements exist no longer.  The Supreme Court overruled (they used the term 'disapproved")* the several cases that  required an explanation before firing an employee where the contract included "at any time" language, even though the employment contract didn't actually include "cause" language.

Now, California employers can terminate California employees at any time for any reason, without cause as long as the employment contract specifies the employment is "at will" and does not contain any language about how long the employment will last (even if it contains "at any time" language).  The split between the courts of appeal has been resolved in favor of California employers.

________________

The three disapproved cases are:  Seubert v. McKesson Corp. (1990) 223 Cal.App.3d 1514; Wallis v. Farmers Group (1990) 220 Cal.App.3d 718; and, Bert G. Gianelli Distributing Co. v. Beck & Co. (1985) 172 Cal.App.3d 1020.  The Court tossed out precedent over 20 years old to reach this decision.

Printer friendly page Permalink Email to a friend Posted by J. Craig Williams on Saturday, August 05, 2006 at 00:43 Comments Closed (0) |
 
Share Link