In a unanimous ruling, the California Supreme Court has rejected an employee’s wrongful termination lawsuit, ruling that at-will language in the employee’s job offer confirmation letter unambiguously meant he could be fired without cause.
The case involved Brook Dore, who interviewed for a management position with the Los Angeles office of ad agency Arnold Worldwide, Inc. After he accepted the position by telephone, he received a letter from Arnold Worldwide confirming the terms of his employment. The letter stated, among other things, that his employment with the company was “at-will,” meaning that the company “has the right to terminate your employment at any time just as you have the right to terminate your employment” at any time. Dore read and signed the letter.
How To Survive an Employee Lawsuit: 10 Tips for Success
With lawsuits against employers becoming ever more common—and jury verdicts skyrocketing—your risk of getting sued has increased dramatically even if you’ve done all the right things. Learn how to protect yourself with our free White Paper, How To Survive an Employee Lawsuit: 10 Tips for Success.
But when Dore was terminated about two years later, he sued Arnold Worldwide for breach of contract, arguing that despite the at-will language in the letter, he could be discharged only for cause. Dore argued there was an “implied in fact” agreement he could be discharged only for cause, based on representations allegedly made to him during the hiring process that his position would be long term. He also claimed the language of the offer confirmation letter was ambiguous as to whether cause was required for discharge because it merely stated that he could be terminated “at any time.”
But now the California Supreme Court has ruled that Dore’s employment was at-will. The court explained that where there is a clear and unambiguous at-will provision in a written employment contract, signed by the employee, that provision cannot be superseded by evidence of a prior or simultaneous unwritten or implied contract requiring cause for termination. And here, the court found, there was no ambiguity in the letter signed by Dore—it clearly provided that his employment was at-will and could be terminated at any time. Thus, Dore could not use other evidence to contradict the terms of that letter.
Look for a full discussion of this case, along with best practices for drafting at-will provisions, in an upcoming issue of the California Employer Advisor.
Additional Resources:
Sample At-Will Employment Language