 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Williams v. Fatburger Restaurants of California11/17/2005
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
In this employment dispute, plaintiff and appellant Jerry Williams appeals from the summary judgment in favor of defendant and respondent Fatburger Restaurants of California, Inc. Williams contends triable issues of fact exist that he had an oral agreement for employment in a corporate management position, his employment was not at will, termination of his employment breached the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and his termination was retaliatory. Concluding that these contentions are not meritorious, we affirm the judgment.
PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Williams worked for Fatburger for four months before being terminated from his position as manager of the Woodland Hills Fatburger restaurant on December 28, 2001. Williams brought this action against Fatburger and Warlick, alleging: (1) breach of express oral employment contract; (2) breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing; and (3) retaliation in violation of the Fair Employment and Housing Act ("FEHA"), Government Code section 12940, subdivision (h). Williams alleged in the first cause of action that Fatburger breached its agreement to place him in a corporate management position at a salary of $75,000 per year. In the second cause of action, Williams alleged that Fatburger's termination of him from his position as store manager breached the covenant of good faith and fair dealing. In the third cause of action, Williams alleged that Fatburger's vice president Richard Brown harassed Williams and terminated him because of complaints he had made about discrimination or harassment.
Defendants moved for summary adjudication of the individual causes of action and for summary judgment. As to the first cause of action for breach of an express oral contract, defendants argued no oral contract existed, and Williams's later employment as a manager of Fatburger was at will. On the cause of action for breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, defendants argued that Williams had no express oral contract, and in any event, Fatburger acted fairly and in good faith in firing Williams based on Williams's substandard job performance. Concerning the retaliation cause of action, defendants argued the conduct by Brown that Williams observed could not reasonably be viewed as unlawful, Williams did not complain about Brown's conduct, and Williams could not establish that his firing was motivated by his alleged complaint about Brown's conduct. The trial court granted summary adjudication in favor of defendants on each cause of action and entered summary judgment in their favor. Williams timely appealed.
FACTS
Williams engaged in discussions with Warlick in 2000 about Williams working as part of the management team if Warlick succeeded in purchasing the company, but Warlick did not offer Williams a job. In early July 2001, Williams met with Warlick and discussed Williams playing a role in site development, sales and marketing of franchises, or working in some capacity managing people, but the area was "left . . . wide open." Warlick purchased Fatburger in late July or early August 2001. Williams's compensation would be $75,000 and benefits, and Warlick told Williams that "we would work things out" for Williams to own a franchise or be part of a group owning a franchise. Warlick did not offer to give Williams his own franc
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 California Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|