Mallard v. Boring
| Citation | 182 Cal.App.2d 390,6 Cal.Rptr. 171 |
| Court | California Court of Appeals |
| Decision Date | 01 July 1960 |
| Parties | , 115 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 4750, 40 Lab.Cas. P 66,743 Margaret MALLARD, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Everett A. MALLARD, Desert Medical Group, a partnership, Roe One through Doe Ten, both inclusive, Defendants and Respondents. Civ. 6162. |
Ruffner & Henson, Camarillo, and Cline & Morrow, El Centro, for appellant.
A. L. Wirin, Los Angeles, and Richard W. Petherbridge, El Centro, as amici curiae on behalf of appellant.
C. F. Sturdevant, Jr., El Centro, for respondents.
Appellant, a former employee of defendant Desert Medical Group, brought this action against the Desert Medical Group and its business manager, defendant Boring. Her first cause of action is against defendant Boring, and alleges that he wrongfully induced defendant Desert Medical Group to breach its contract of employment with plaintiff. He second cause of action alleges a wrongful breach of the contract of employment by defendant Desert Medical Group.
In the first cause of action the complaint alleges that the plaintiff was employed by Desert Medical Group, a partnership, in February, 1956; that the employment was by oral agreement on a month to month basis at a starting salary of $300 per month; that the services performed by plaintiff were of a stenographic nature; that she performed all of her obligations under the contract until May 20, 1958; and that her salary had been increased to the sum of $400 per month. She alleges that in February, 1958, defendant Boring was employed by Desert Medical Group as a business manager. She then alleges that on May 15, 1958, plaintiff received a questionnaire from the Justice Court of the El Centro Judicial District, which questionnaire plaintiff was to fill out indicating whether or not she was available for jury duty in said court; that plaintiff commenced to fill out the questionnaire, whereupon defendant Boring ordered plaintiff not to apply for jury duty or to indicate that she was available for jury duty; that plaintiff then talked with one of the senior partners of Desert Medical Group and was informed by him that it was plaintiff's duty and obligation to resond to the questionnaire and to be available for jury duty; that plaintiff then filled out the questionnaire indicating that she was available for jury duty, and mailed the questionnaire to the court.
It is then alleged that between that time and May 20, defendant Boring, acting with oppression or malice and with knowledge of the contract of employment and with knowledge that plaintiff had submitted the questionnaire to the court, wrongfully induced Desert Medical Group to dismiss and discharge plaintiff from her employment, and to therefore breach the contract of employment 'for the sole reason that plaintiff had attempted to fulfill her political right and duty of serving as a trial juror.' It is then alleged that as a proximate cause of such wrongful inducement, she was discharged from her employment by Desert Medical Group; that she was at all times willing and able to perform her duties under the contract; and that she was damaged.
The second cause of action is against defendant Desert Medical Group. After incorporating the allegations of the first cause of action, plaintiff alleges that defendant Boring is the agent of Desert Medical Group and that:
'On or about May 20, 1958, while acting within the scope of his authority as business manager of defendant Desert Medical Group and while acting within the scope of his employment with defendant Desert Medical Group and as the agent of defendant Desert Medical Group, defendant Everett A. Boring, for the Desert Medical Group, arbitrarily discharged and dismissed plaintiff from her employment therefore wrongfully breaching said contract of employment by making, adopting or enforcing a rule, regulation or policy forbidding or preventing plaintiff as an employee from engaging or participating in politics or making, adopting or enforcing a rule, regulation or policy controlling or directing or tending to control or direct the political activities or affiliation of plaintiff as an employee by prohibiting plaintiff from serving as a trial juror in the Justice Court of the El Centro Judicial District.' She then alleges general damages.
The court sustained a demurrer to the first amended complaint and granted plaintiff fifteen days to amend. Plaintiff did not amend, and the court made and entered its judgment for defendants for their costs. Plaintiff appeals from the judgment.
There is ample authority that unlawful inducement to breach a contract is actionable and that this applies to a contract which is terminable at will. Speegle v. Board of Fire Underwriters, 29 Cal.2d 34, 172 P.2d 867.
Lawless v. Brotherhood of Painters, 143 Cal.App.2d 474, 478, 300 P.2d 159, 162.
It should further be pointed out that plaintiff has not alleged that defendant Boring did not have the authority to discharge her. Funk v. Baldwin, 80 Ga.App. 177, 55 S.E.2d 733. In fact, to the contrary, in her second cause of action she alleges that while acting within the scope of his authority as business manager, defendant Boring, for Desert Medical Group, arbitrarily discharged and dismissed plaintiff from their employment. This being the case, Boring could not induce a breach of contract; if there was a breach, he breached it for and on behalf of his principal, Desert Medical Group.
Accordingly the complaint does not state a cause of action for wrongfully inducing a breach of contract.
As to the second cause of action, it is conceded that plaintiff's employment was terminable at will. Under such a contract of employment, plaintiff could quit at any time and her employer could discharge her at any time with or without cause. Roberts v. Western Pac. R. R. Co., 142 Cal.App.2d 317, 298 P.2d 120; Labor Code, sec. 2922. It makes no difference if the employer had a bad motive in so doing.
'Precisely as may the employe cease labor at his whim or pleasure, and, whatever be his reason, good, bad, or indifferent, leave no one a legal right to complain; so, upon the other hand, may the employer...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gay Law Students Assn. v. Pacific Tel. & Tel. Co.
...481, 486, 171 P.2d 21.) These statutes cannot be narrowly confined to partisan activity. As explained in Mallard v. Boring (1960) 182 Cal.App.2d 390, 395, 6 Cal.Rptr. 171, 174: "The term 'political activity' connotes the espousal of a candidate or a cause, and some degree of action to promo......
-
Gruenberg v. Aetna Ins. Co.
...being in a confidential relationship to the corporation their action in this respect is privileged.' (See also Mallard v. Boring (1960) 182 Cal.App.2d 390, 393, 6 Cal.Rptr. 171.) Accordingly, the judgment of dismissal in favor of the non-insurer defendants must be Defendant insurance compan......
-
Shapiro v. Wells Fargo Realty Advisors
...that courts have no power to declare public policy in wrongful discharge cases without statutory support. (See Mallard v. Boring (1960) 182 Cal.App.2d 390, 6 Cal.Rptr. 171.) We find that Shapiro has failed to establish that Wells Fargo's motive for his discharge was wrongful either because ......
-
Geary v. U.S. Steel Corp.
...793, 13 Cal.Rptr. 769 (1961) and Montalvo v. Zamora, 7 Cal.App.3rd 69, 86 Cal.Rptr. 401 (1970), with which Mallard v. Boring, 182 Cal.App.2d 390, 6 Cal.Rptr. 171 (1960) and Patterson v. Philco Corp., 252 Cal.App.2d 63, 60 Cal.Rptr. 110 (1967) should be compared. The Indiana Supreme Court's ......
-
Toward Coherence in Civil Conspiracy Law: a Proposal to Abolish the Agent's Immunity Rule
...breach a contract with a third person (see Lawless, 300 P.2d at 162; see also May, 370 P.2d at 395 (citing Lawless); Mallard v. Boring, 6 Cal. Rptr. 171, 173 (Cal. Ct. App. 1960) (same)), it considered only whether the contractual relationship that was disrupted was one between master and s......
-
Interference With Business Relations
...Uniform Services, Inc. , 65 Cal.App.4th 1383 (1998); Marin v. Jacuzzi , 224 Cal.App.2d 549 (1964); see also Mallard v. Boring , 182 Cal. App.2d 390 (1960); Lawless v. Brotherhood of Painters, etc. , 143 Cal.App.2d 474 (1956). The interrogatories set forth in this section explore the defenda......
-
CHAPTER 6
...being in a confidential relationship to the corporation their action in this respect is privileged.” (See also Mallard v. Boring, 182 Cal. App. 2d 390, 393 [6 Cal. Rptr. 171] (1960).) Accordingly, the judgment of dismissal in favor of the non-insurer defendants must be affirmed. Defendant i......
-
Interference With Business Relations
...Uniform Services, Inc. , 65 Cal.App.4th 1383 (1998); Marin v. Jacuzzi , 224 Cal.App.2d 549 (1964); see also Mallard v. Boring , 182 Cal. App.2d 390 (1960); Lawless v. Brotherhood of Painters, etc. , 143 Cal.App.2d 474 (1956). The interrogatories set forth in this section explore the defenda......