Lagatree v. Luce, Forward, Hamilton & Scripps
Decision Date | 13 September 1999 |
Docket Number | Nos. B124263,B125272,s. B124263 |
Citation | 88 Cal.Rptr.2d 664,74 Cal.App.4th 1105 |
Parties | , 15 IER Cases 865, 99 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 7593, 1999 Daily Journal D.A.R. 9559 Donald LAGATREE, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. LUCE, FORWARD, HAMILTON & SCRIPPS, Defendant and Respondent. Donald Lagatree, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Keesal, Young & Logan, Defendant and Respondent. |
Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
ACLU Foundation of Southern California, David S. Schwartz and Mark D. Rosenbaum, Los Angeles, for Plaintiff and Appellant.
Luce, Forward, Hamilton & Scripps, Charles A. Bird and Kelly Capen Douglas, San Diego, for Defendant and Respondent Luce, Forward, Hamilton & Scripps.
Keesal, Young & Logan, Ben R. Suter, San Francisco, Dawn M. Schock, Long Beach, and Lisa M. Bertain, San Francisco, for Defendant and Respondent Keesal, Young & Logan.
Sidley & Austin, Jeffrey A. Berman, Los Angeles, and Octavio A. Pedroza, for Employers Group as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Defendants and Respondents.
This appeal presents the question of whether an employee can state a cause of action for wrongful termination in violation of public policy where he was discharged in 1997 for refusing to sign a predispute arbitration agreement requiring that work-related disputes be resolved through binding arbitration. We conclude that the termination did not violate public policy.
In September 1993, plaintiff Donald Lagatree, a legal secretary, commenced temporary employment with the law firm of Keesal, Young & Logan in Long Beach. On March 14, 1994, Lagatree became a full-time employee of the firm. Throughout his employment with Keesal Young, Lagatree's job performance was rated satisfactory or better. He received pay raises and bonuses.
In early June 1997, Keesal Young asked Lagatree to sign an arbitration agreement, which stated: The agreement provided that disputes would be heard by a panel of three retired superior court judges and that the arbitration would be conducted pursuant to the commercial arbitration rules of the American Arbitration Association. The agreement also provided that "the entire cost of the arbitration, including legal fees, shall be borne by the losing party."
Lagatree informed Keesal Young's managing partner that he did not want to submit disputes to arbitration. On or about June 30, 1997, Lagatree was discharged for refusing to sign the agreement.
Lagatree searched for another secretarial job. On September 12, 1997, he was offered a full-time position at the law firm of Luce, Forward, Hamilton & Scripps LLP. He accepted the offer. On September 16, 1997, Lagatree reported to Luce Forward's Los Angeles office for his first day of work. Later that day, Lagatree was given a "Letter of Employment," which purported to "confirm[ ] our offer of employment to you in the position as a non-exempt legal secretary ..., should you accept." The letter further stated: "In the event of any dispute or claim between you and the firm (including employees, partners, agents, successors and assigns), including, but not limited to claims arising from or related to your employment or the termination of your employment, we jointly On September 18, 1997, his third day at Luce Forward, Lagatree told his superiors that he would not agree to arbitrate disputes. Lagatree was advised that the arbitration provision was "not negotiable" and that his continued employment was contingent upon signing the agreement. Lagatree declined to sign the agreement and was discharged.
agree to submit all such disputes or claims to confidential binding arbitration, under the Federal Arbitration Act."
On February 13, 1998, Lagatree filed separate actions against Keesal Young and Luce Forward. Both complaints alleged that Lagatree had been terminated in violation of public policy for refusing to waive his constitutional rights to a jury trial and a judicial forum (U.S. Const., 1st & 7th Amends.; Cal. Const., art. I, §§ 3, 16). Lagatree also alleged that his discharge violated the California Unfair Competition Law (Bus. & Prof.Code, §§ 17200-17209) 1 and Civil Code section 1668. 2 The law firms demurred to the complaints, arguing that an employer does not violate public policy by discharging employees who refuse to sign a predispute arbitration agreement as a condition of employment. The demurrers were sustained without leave to amend. Lagatree filed timely appeals from the dismissals. We ordered the cases consolidated for purposes of appeal. 3
In reviewing the ruling on a demurrer, (Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 318, 216 Cal.Rptr. 718, 703 P.2d 58, citations omitted.)
"Labor Code section 2922 provides in relevant part, 'An employment, having no specified term, may be terminated at the will of either party on notice to the other....' This presumption may be superseded by a contract, express or implied, limiting the employer's right to discharge the employee.... Absent any contract, however, the employment is 'at will,' and the employee can be fired with or Our Supreme Court (Stevenson v. Superior Court (1997) 16 Cal.4th 880, 889-890, 66 Cal.Rptr.2d 888, 941 P.2d 1157; see Green v. Ralee Engineering Co., supra, 19 Cal.4th at pp. 75-76, 79-80, 89-90, 78 Cal.Rptr.2d 16, 960 P.2d 1046.)
without good cause. But the employer's right to discharge an 'at will' employee is still subject to limits imposed by public policy, since otherwise the threat of discharge could be used to coerce employees into committing crimes, concealing wrongdoing, or taking other action harmful to the public weal." (Foley v. Interactive Data Corp. (1988) 47 Cal.3d 654, 665, 254 Cal.Rptr. 211, 765 P.2d 373, citations and fn. omitted ("Foley ").) "Accordingly, while an at-will employee may be terminated for no reason, or for an arbitrary or irrational reason, there can be no right to terminate for an unlawful reason or a purpose that contravenes fundamental public policy." (Gantt v. Sentry Insurance (1992) 1 Cal.4th 1083, 1094, 4 Cal.Rptr.2d 874, 824 P.2d 680, overruled on other grounds in Green v. Ralee Engineering Co. (1998) 19 Cal.4th 66, 80, fn. 6, 78 Cal.Rptr.2d 16, 960 P.2d 1046.) 4
"The cases in which California courts have recognized a separate tort cause of action for wrongful termination in violation of public policy generally fall into four categories, where the employee is discharged for: (1) refusal to violate a statute ...; (2) performing a statutory obligation ...; (3) exercising (or refusing to waive) a statutory or constitutional right or privilege ...; or (4) reporting an alleged violation of a statute of public importance...." (Pettus v. Cole (1996) 49 Cal.App.4th 402, 454, 57 Cal.Rptr.2d 46, citations and fn. omitted; accord, Green v. Ralee Engineering Co., supra, 19 Cal.4th at p. 76, 78 Cal.Rptr.2d 16, 960 P.2d 1046.)
" " (Stevenson v. Superior Court, supra, 16 Cal.4th at p. 889, 66 Cal.Rptr.2d 888, 941 P.2d 1157.) Unfortunately, " '[t]he term "public policy" is inherently not subject to precise definition....' " (Gantt v. Sentry Insurance, supra, 1 Cal.4th at p. 1094, 4 Cal.Rptr.2d 874, 824 P.2d 680.) Thus, (Id. at p. 1095, 4 Cal.Rptr.2d 874, 824 P.2d 680.)
A claim of wrongful termination in violation of public policy must be based on a "substantial public" policy. (See Green v. Ralee Engineering Co., supra, 19 Cal.4th at...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Oto, L. L.C. v. Kho
... ... unless " substantively unreasonable"]; Lagatree v. Luce, Forward, Hamilton & Scripps (1999) 74 Cal.App.4th ... ...
-
Jackson v. Amazon.com, Inc.
... ... the plaintiff was exempt from the FAA); see Lagatree v. Luce, Forward, Hamilton & Scripps , 74 Cal. App. 4th ... ...
-
Harris v. TAP Worldwide, LLC
... ... included in handbook executed by employee]; Lagatree v. Luce, Forward, Hamilton & Scripps (1999) 74 Cal.App.4th ... ...
-
McManus v. Cibc World Markets Corp.
... ... (See Lagatree v. Luce, Forward Hamilton & Scripps (1999) 74 Cal.App.4th ... ...
-
Lack of Meaningful Choice Defined: Your Job vs. Your Right to Sue in a Judicial Forum
...172. Id. 173. Id. 174. Id. 175. Id. 176. Id. 177. Id. 178. Id. 179. Id. (discussing Lagatree v. Luce, Forward, Hamilton and Scripps, 88 Cal. Rptr. 2d 664 (Cal. Ct. App. 180. Id. 181. Id. 182. Id. at 745-46. 183. Id. at 746. 184. EEOC v. Luce, Forward, Hamilton and Scripps, 122 F. Supp. 2d 1......
-
Between rights and contract: arbitration agreements and non-compete covenants as a hybrid form of employment law.
...it left open the possibility that such a discharge would be actionable if the underlying arbitration agreement were clearly invalid. 88 Cal. Rptr. 2d 664, 672 (Cal. Ct. App. (75) In principle the issue can arise with any contract, some term of which is, for ex ample, contrary to public poli......
-
Circuit Split Analysis: Involuntary Arbitration Agreements
...1 (Cal.Super. July 16, 2015).261. Id. at *2.262. Id. at *2.263. Id.264. Id.265. Id., see Legatree v. Luce, Forward, Hamilton & Scripps [88 Cal.Rptr.2d 664] (1999) (that an "arbitration agreement is an adhesion contract does not render it automatically unenforceable as unconscionable. Courts......