 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Lim v. Prudential Insurance Co. of America9/14/2005
and the uncontradicted inferences the evidence reasonably supports. [Citation.]"
II. SUMMARY JUDGMENT WAS APPROPRIATE IN THIS CASE
For the reasons discussed below, defendants met their burden on summary judgment of showing each of Lim's causes of action lacks merit. Lim has failed to show a triable issue of material fact with respect to either of her causes of action.
A. Wrongful Termination in Violation of Public Policy
An employer's right to discharge an at-will employee like Lim is subject to public policy limitations. A plaintiff who asserts a claim for wrongful termination in violation of public policy -- a "Tameny claim" -- "must show that the important public interests seek to protect are `tethered to fundamental policies that are delineated in constitutional or statutory provisions'" or regulations designed to promote public health and safety. The public policy the plaintiff asserts must be "well established" at the time of the termination.
There is no dispute "the prompt payment of wages due an employee is a fundamental public policy of this state." If Prudential terminated Lim to avoid paying her commissions she had earned, the termination was tortious. To prevail on this cause of action, Lim also must demonstrate a causal nexus between Prudential's alleged desire to deprive her of earned commissions and the decision to terminate her employment.
Lim's cause of action fails because she cannot show Prudential's decision to terminate her was motivated by a desire to deprive her of commissions. Lim claims Hsiao was the only person at Prudential who had the desire or power to deprive her of commissions. But Lim has failed to produce any evidence demonstrating Hsiao actually had such a desire. Even if Hsiao had the desire and was actively seeking to deprive Lim of commissions, the evidence unequivocally shows Hsiao had no involvement in the decision to terminate Lim's employment. There is no evidence Hsiao discussed Lim's situation with any of the persons who participated in the decision to fire her. It was the Underwriting Department, not Hsiao, who alerted the Agency Relations Department to "irregularities" in the manner in which Lim handled the Lim family cases.
Lim contends the decision to terminate her employment must have been motivated by a desire to deprive her of commissions because Prudential had no other reason to fire her. The evidence in the record shows otherwise. Lim accepted prepaid applications for insurance policies in excess of $1,000,000 in violation of Prudential policy. She ignored her supervisor's order for her to return client checks immediately and instead waited three days to comply. For the second time, Lim chose not to provide a timely written response to an inquiry from Prudential concerning potential misconduct. Two weeks elapsed between the time Hsiao gave Lim the inquiry letter and the date Lim was terminated, but Lim could not find the time to provide the response. Prudential had already told Lim it considered such conduct to be insubordination. Although Lim attempts to justify her actions, she has not and cannot show Prudential's stated reasons for terminating her are pretextual.
Based on the foregoing, Prudential met its burden of showing Lim cannot establish at least one element of her cause of action for wrongful termination in violation of public policy, and Lim failed to show a triable issue of material fact as to this cause of action. Accordingly, we need not decide whether Lim had actually "earned" the commissions on the Rodriguez policies before Prudential terminated her employment.
B. Defamation
Lim's cause of action for defamation a
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 California Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|