Stevenson v. Superior Court of Cal. for the County of Los Angeles

50 Cal. Rptr. 2d 206 (Ct. App. 1996); No. B089375 (Cal. Ct. App. Feb. 27, 1996). ; Clearinghouse Number: 51149

Description

Older Employee Terminated While on Medical Leave Has No Cause of Action for Wrongful Discharge

Abstract

The California Court of Appeal has found no cause of action for tortious wrongful discharge in violation of the public policy against age discrimination. After over 30 years of employment with respondent hospital and while petitioner, a 60-year-old woman, was on a medical leave of absence, hospital informed her that her right to reinstatement was guaranteed until December 31, 1992. In November 1992, petitioner notified hospital that she was ready to return to her position. However, hospital would not allow her to return to her job classification or shift and further denied her contractual right to reinstatement to another job classification and shift with the opportunity for reassignment to her original job classification and shift. Denied reinstatement, petitioner was terminated. She sued, alleging (1) breach of contract; (2) wrongful termination in violation of public policy barring retaliation against an employee for exercising the right to take an approved medical leave of absence; (3) wrongful termination in violation of public policy against age discrimination; and (4) breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The appellate court held that the California Supreme Court’s ruling in Jennings v. Marralle, 8 Cal. 4th 121 (1994), precluded petitioner’s cause of action for wrongful discharge in violation of the public policy against age discrimination. Jennings precludes a common-law cause of action for age discrimination in employment predicated on the state’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), and the FEHA’s statutory remedy is exclusive. However, the court urged the supreme court to explore this further. The court held that petitioner did not state a public policy claim based on a violation of her right to medical leave; the FEHA provisions on medical leave were not effective until after petitioner’s termination and the policy was not well established at her discharge.

Additional Information

Attorney Information
Amicus Curiae represented by Laurie McCann, Cathy Ventrell-Monsees, AARP 601 E St. NW, Washington, DC 20049, (202) 434-2277.
Docket Date
1996-02-17 00:00:00+00:00