 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Miklosy v. Regents of the University of California10/27/2005
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
The trial court sustained the demurrer of respondents the Regents of the University of California, Kim Minuzzo, Larry Lagin and Jerry Krammen to a wrongful termination action filed by two former employees, appellants Les G. Miklosy and Luciana C. Messina. Miklosy and Messina appeal the resulting judgment of dismissal, contending that the trial court erred in sustaining the Regents' demurrer to their first amended complaint because that pleading stated causes of action for wrongful termination in retaliation for whistleblowing, wrongful termination in violation of public policy, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. They also contend that the individual defendants named in their first amended complaint are liable for wrongful termination in violation of public policy. (See Gov. Code, ยงยง 8547-8547.12.) We affirm the judgment.
I. FACTS
Beginning in November 2001, appellant Luciana C. Messina worked as a computer scientist at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, operated by respondent the Regents of the University of California. In February 2002, appellant Les G. Miklosy was employed by the Regents at the same laboratory. Both Miklosy and Messina worked in the National Ignition Facility and-in the course of their work-they discovered engineering and design problems that they brought to the attention of management. In January 2003, Messina asked her superiors to have Miklosy assigned to her project. Miklosy's supervisors began criticizing his work, raising issues that he thought were unwarranted. Both Miklosy and Messina noted safety, mechanical and structural issues that could delay a project that laboratory supervisors hoped would proceed more promptly.
Miklosy and Messina were concerned that, if these issues were ignored, workers could be injured. They were also concerned about the misuse of government property, waste and inefficiency that might arise if the underlying issues were not addressed. On February 14, 2003, they raised these issues at a risk analysis meeting. On February 28, 2003, Miklosy was terminated. Messina learned that her superiors intended to terminate her and she resigned. Her resignation-which Messina asserts was forced on her-took effect on March 7, 2003.
Miklosy and Messina both tried to file employee grievances with the laboratory, but were not allowed to do so. Miklosy was not a full-time, indefinite term employee and Messina had resigned, so both were ruled to be ineligible for any administrative remedy under the laboratory's internal administrative procedures. Both met with attorneys for the laboratory and the Regents in May and July 2003. They also filed complaints under the state Whistleblower Protection Act (WPA) in August 2003. In November 2003, an informal review was conducted of their claims that they were terminated in retaliation for whistleblowing. The laboratory ruled that neither Miklosy nor Messina left its employment as a result of retaliation.
In February 2004, Miklosy and Messina filed a complaint for damages against the Regents and three laboratory employees who served in supervisory capacities-Kim Minuzzo, Larry Lagin and Jerry Krammen. Miklosy and Messina alleged causes of action for violation of the WPA, wrongful termination in violation of public policy, wrongful constructive termination in violation of public policy and intentional infl
Page 1 2 3 4 5 California Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|