Appellant employer sought review of an order from the Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco (California), which rewarded respondent employee lost wages and damages for emotional distress in a wrongful discharge suit.
California Business Lawyer & Corporate Lawyer, Inc. are Los Angeles business lawyers
Overview
Respondent employee prevailed in a wrongful discharge lawsuit against appellant employer. The jury rewarded respondent $ 250,000.00 in claimed lost wages plus $ 500,000.00 in damages for emotional distress. The court affirmed in part and reversed in part, concluding that the trial court did not err in instructing the jury on the question of an implied employment contract. The court found that the award for emotional distress must be reversed because that award could not be sustained on any of the three theories that respondent asserted at trial. The trial court did not err in refusing to modify the instructions because parties may be bound, regardless of their subjective intent, by actions constituting an implied manifestation of assent reasonably interpreted as such by the other party. The claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress was barred by the exclusivity principle of workers’ compensation laws. In addition, respondent failed to demonstrate that she suffered anything beyond the normal feelings when a person is terminated.
Outcome
The court affirmed that part of the trial court’s order which awarded respondent employee lost wages but reversed the award of damages for emotional distress. The court concluded that the trial court did not err in instructing the jury on the question of an implied employment contract, and the award for emotional distress must be reversed because that award may not be sustained on any of the three theories respondent asserted at trial.