Ferrick v. Santa Clara Univ.
Decision Date | 01 January 2014 |
Docket Number | H040252 |
Citation | 231 Cal.App.4th 1337,181 Cal.Rptr.3d 68 |
Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Parties | Linda FERRICK, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. SANTA CLARA UNIVERSITY, Defendant and Respondent. |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
See 3 Witkin, Summary of Cal. Law (10th ed. 2005) Agency and Employment, § 349.
Santa Clara County Superior Court S.Ct. No. CV233484, Hon. Carol W. Overton, Hon. Neal Anthony Cabrinha, Hon. Patricia M. Lucas, Trial Judge.
David L. Scher, The Employment Law Group, for Plaintiff and Appellant
Michael J. Ioannou, Terry Anastassiou, Susan H. Handelman, Ropers, Majeski, Kohn & Bentley, for Defendant and Respondent
Linda Ferrick, a former employee of Santa Clara University (SCU), a private institution, appeals from a judgment of dismissal after an order sustaining a demurrer to Ferrick's second amended complaint (complaint) without leave to amend. The complaint's sole cause of action is for wrongful termination in violation of public policy, otherwise known as a Tameny claim (see Tameny v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (1980) 27 Cal.3d 167, 164 Cal.Rptr. 839, 610 P.2d 1330). The court found that the complaint failed to allege that her discharge violated any fundamental public policy.
Although the complaint charges Nick Travis (Travis), allegedly SCU's “Director of Real Estate” and Ferrick's immediate supervisor, with extensive wrongdoing and inappropriate behavior, only some of that conduct was allegedly reported by Ferrick to SCU's management. Based upon her limited disclosures to SCU as alleged, Ferrick argues that the complaint states a cause of action. We conclude that the complaint does state a cause of action for wrongful termination in violation of public policy on a very narrow basis. Accordingly, we will reverse the judgment.
Appellate review of an order sustaining a demurrer is de novo. (McCall v. PacifiCare of Cal., Inc. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 412, 415, 106 Cal.Rptr.2d 271, 21 P.3d 1189.) (Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 318, 216 Cal.Rptr. 718, 703 P.2d 58.)
(Committee On Children's Television, Inc. v. General Foods Corp. (1983) 35 Cal.3d 197, 214, 197 Cal.Rptr. 783, 673 P.2d 660.) In reviewing the ruling on a demurrer, “the question of plaintiff's ability to prove these allegations, or the possible difficulty in making such proof does not concern the reviewing court [citations]....” (Alcorn v. Anbro Engineering, Inc. (1970) 2 Cal.3d 493, 496, 86 Cal.Rptr. 88, 468 P.2d 216.) (C.A. v. William S. Hart Union High School Dist. (2012) 53 Cal.4th 861, 872, 138 Cal.Rptr.3d 1, 270 P.3d 699.) A complaint's allegations are construed liberally in favor of the pleader. (Skopp v. Weaver (1976) 16 Cal.3d 432, 438, 128 Cal.Rptr. 19, 546 P.2d 307; see Code Civ. Proc., § 452.)
(Blank v. Kirwan, supra, 39 Cal.3d at p. 318, 216 Cal.Rptr. 718, 703 P.2d 58.) The plaintiff (Cooper v. Leslie Salt Co. (1969) 70 Cal.2d 627, 636, 75 Cal.Rptr. 766, 451 P.2d 406.) In this case, Ferrick has not shown that her complaint may be amended in any factual respect.
The complaint alleges that Ferrick worked for SCU as a senior administrator in its real estate department and Travis was the department's director. It contains allegations indicating that Travis has a bad character and behaved unprofessionally, for example, it states that Travis has a “ ‘playboy ethic,’ ” he sent “ ‘inappropriate emails,’ ” he arrived late to the office, he took long lunches, he sometimes failed to come into work, and he “frequently drank alcohol at work and left empty beer cans in his office....”
The complaint generally alleges: It also states: “Travis' activities violated statutes and significant public policy concerns by harming SCU students, parents, customers, taxpayers, regulators, bond issuers, local business, and communitymembers and is therefore a matter of public policy.”
According to the complaint, Travis asked Ferrick's son-in-law, David Rego, a construction supervisor at SCU, to procure a truck for SCU's real estate department. Rego procured a truck for $6,000. When processing an invoice for $21,000 from Rego in August 2011, Ferrick allegedly “changed the total from $21,000 to $27,000 believing, incorrectly, that the bill did not reflect the $6,000 for the truck.” “Rego subsequently returned a check for $6,000 that was overpaid” and “Ferrick immediately deposited it in an SCU account, correcting the error.”
On September 9, 2011, SCU informed Ferrick that there would be a full audit of its real estate department. SCU placed Ferrick and her son-in-law on paid administrative leave. On October 12, 2011, Travis terminated Ferrick “for ‘questionable finance practices' that he characterized, at worst, ‘as fraud and embezzlement from the University.’ ”
The allegations of the complaint indicate that at various times Ferrick made disclosures about Travis to Harry Fong, SCU's director of finance, or Sam Florio, SCU's risk manager. It also alleges that she provided a list of SCU tenants of Steve Sundeen, a property owner who paid Travis a fee of 3 percent on new leases, to SCU's budget director, Dennis Roberts, a little more than a month before SCU announced an internal audit of the real estate department.
The court sustained SCU's demurrer to the complaint without leave to amend because it failed to state facts sufficient to show that the university terminated Ferrick in violation of a fundamental public policy. It found that “the alleged illegal conduct by [Ferrick's] supervisor that she reported to her superiors involved an injury only to the pecuniary interests of SCU, a private institution, and not the public at large.” It indicated that Ferrick's “conclusory allegations that her supervisor's alleged conduct generally result in harm to students and others are insufficient to demonstrate that he violated laws which inure benefits to the public at large.” The trial court determined that Ferrick had not shown that she could add factual allegations to state a claim.
A. Law Governing Tameny Claim
(Jennings v. Marralle (1994) 8 Cal.4th 121, 129, 32 Cal.Rptr.2d 275, 876 P.2d 1074, fn. omitted.) Tameny stated: “[W]hen an employer's discharge of an employee violates fundamental principles of public policy, the discharged employee may maintain a tort action and recover damages traditionally available in such actions.” (Tameny, supra, at p. 170, 164 Cal.Rptr. 839, 610 P.2d 1330.)
To prevail on a claim for wrongful termination in violation of public policy, a plaintiff must show that (1) the plaintiff was employed by the defendant, (2) the defendant discharged the plaintiff, (3) a violation of public policy was a motivating reason for the discharge, and (4) the discharge harmed the plaintiff. (See Haney v. Aramark Uniform Services, Inc. (2004) 121 Cal.App.4th 623, 641, 17 Cal.Rptr.3d 336; CACI No. 2430.)
B. Public Policy1. Nature of Public Policy Supporting Wrongful Termination Claim
The public policy supporting a claim of wrongful termination must meet the following four criteria: (Stevenson v. Superior Court (1997) 16 Cal.4th 880, 889–890, 66 Cal.Rptr.2d 888, 941 P.2d 1157, fn. omitted.) Administrative regulations implementing a statute may also be a...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
California Employment Law Notes - January 2015
...EEOC complaint). Employee Could Proceed With Whistleblower Claim Based On Suspected Commercial Bribery Ferrick v. Santa Clara Univ., 231 Cal. App. 4th 1337 Linda Ferrick, a former senior administrator for Santa Clara University, claimed the termination of her employment resulted from her re......