 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Southwest Gas v. Vargas8/24/1995
t in Vargas's case. 7 Other issues raised by Southwest have arguable merit. In light of this opinion, however, we need not address them.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that the district court erred in denying Southwest's motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the district court entered pursuant to the jury's verdict.
Opinion Footnotes}
1 At trial, Olsen acknowledged that sexual harassment was an offense that could result in immediate termination, and CEO Maffie testified that Vargas's conduct fell within the categories of insubordination and illegal conduct.
2 On the issue of "good cause'' for termination, the jury was instructed as follows, with the apparent acquiescence of each party: Termination for cause means a legitimate reason for making a decision to discharge an employee. An employer is entitled to assess and determine the quality and acceptability of the employee's performance and conduct and to rely upon facts the employer reasonably believes to be true regarding the employee's behavior. A legitimate business reason is one rationally related to a lawful business purpose. Termination of an employee for a legitimate business reason is not a breach of a promise to terminate only for cause. The
plaintiff must prove by a preponderance of the evidence the defendant did not have a legitimate business reason for discharging him. It is not appropriate for you to substitute your opinion for that of the employer that plaintiff's conduct was not satisfactory. Your task is to decide whether the decision to terminate the plaintiff was made for legitimate reasons.
3 Thompson is the Washington case that modified the common law at-will doctrine to provide protection for employees who rely on employer promises of specific treatment in employee manuals and who are discharged for reasons contravening public policy.
4 We acknowledge that some courts have taken a more deferential approach. For example, the Michigan Supreme Court has stated that allegations of misconduct present a question of fact for the jury, not only in terms of whether the misconduct occurred, but also in terms of whether the misconduct constitutes good cause. Toussaint v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Mich., 292 N.W.2d 880, 896 (Mich. 1980). This is true despite "the danger that [the jury] will substitute its judgment for the employer's. If the jurors would not have fired the employee for doing what he admittedly did, or they find he did, the employer may be held liable in damages although the employee was discharged in good faith and the employer's decision was not unreasonable." Id. Moreover, the California Supreme Court has expressed agreement with the proposition that although an employer has wide latitude in making personnel decisions, an employer's belief is not a substitute for good cause. For that reason, the employer's broad latitude does not extend to being factually incorrect. If an employer claims the employee was discharged for specific misconduct, and the employee denies the charge, the question of whether the misconduct occurred is one of fact for the jury. Wilkerson v. Wells Fargo Bank, 261 Cal. Rptr. 185, 192-93 (Ct. App. 1989) (cited by the California Supreme Court with approval in LaGoe v. Duber Indus. Sec. Inc., 782 P.2d 1140 (Cal. 1989), vacating LaGoe v. Duber Indus. Sec. Inc., 239 Cal. Rptr. 445 (Ct. App. 1987)). But see Desuasido v. Sanwa Bank California, 278 Cal. Rptr. 868 (Ct. App. 1991), review denied, June 6, 1991; Moore v. May Dept. Stores Co., 271 Cal. Rptr. 841, 843 (Ct. App. 1990).
5 We note that charges of
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Nevada Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|