California Civil Jury Instructions (CACI) (2017)

2405. Breach of Implied Employment Contract - Unspecified Term—"Good Cause" Defined—Misconduct

Download PDF
2405.Breach of Implied Employment Contract—Unspecified
Term—“Good Cause” Defined—Misconduct
[Name of plaintiff] claims that [name of defendant] did not have good
cause to [discharge/demote] [him/her] for misconduct. [Name of
defendant] had good cause to [discharge/demote] [name of plaintiff] for
misconduct if [name of defendant], acting in good faith, conducted an
appropriate investigation giving [him/her/it] reasonable grounds to
believe that [name of plaintiff] engaged in misconduct.
An appropriate investigation is one that is reasonable under the
circumstances and includes notice to the employee of the claimed
misconduct and an opportunity for the employee to answer the charge
of misconduct before the decision to [discharge/demote] is made. You
may find that [name of defendant] had good cause to [discharge/demote]
[name of plaintiff] without deciding if [name of plaintiff] actually engaged
in misconduct.
New September 2003
Directions for Use
This instruction should be given when there is a dispute as to whether misconduct,
in fact, occurred. (Cotran v. Rollins Hudig Hall International, Inc. (1998) 17
Cal.4th 93 [69 Cal.Rptr.2d 900, 948 P.2d 412].)
Sources and Authority
• “The proper inquiry for the jury . . . is not, ‘Did the employee in fact commit
the act leading to dismissal?’ It is ‘Was the factual basis on which the employer
concluded a dischargeable act had been committed reached honestly, after an
appropriate investigation and for reasons that are not arbitrary or pretextual?’
The jury conducts a factual inquiry in both cases, but the questions are not the
same. In the first, the jury decides the ultimate truth of the employee’s alleged
misconduct. In the second, it focuses on the employer’s response to allegations
of misconduct.” (Cotran, supra, 17 Cal.4th at p. 107.)
• “ ‘Good cause’ in the context of implied employment contracts is defined as:
‘fair and honest’ reasons, regulated by good faith on the part of the employer,
that are not trivial, arbitrary or capricious, unrelated to business needs or goals,
or pretextual. A reasoned conclusion, in short, supported by substantial evidence
gathered through an adequate investigation that includes notice of the claimed
misconduct and a chance for the employee to respond.’ ‘Three factual
determinations are relevant to the question of employer liability: (1) did the
employer act with good faith in making the decision to terminate; (2) did the
decision follow an investigation that was appropriate under the circumstances;
and (3) did the employer have reasonable grounds for believing the employee
1340
0018
had engaged in the misconduct.’ ‘Cotran did not delineate the earmarks of an
appropriate investigation but noted that investigative fairness contemplates
listening to both sides and providing employees a fair opportunity to present
their position and to correct or contradict relevant statements prejudicial to their
case, without the procedural formalities of a trial.’ ” (Serri v. Santa Clara
University (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 830, 872–873 [172 Cal.Rptr.3d 732], internal
citations omitted.)
• “We have held that appellant has demonstrated a prima facie case of wrongful
termination in violation of his contract of employment. The burden of coming
forward with evidence as to the reason for appellant’s termination now shifts to
the employer. Appellant may attack the employer’s offered explanation, either
on the ground that it is pretextual and that the real reason is one prohibited by
contract or public policy, or on the ground that it is insufficient to meet the
employer’s obligations under contract or applicable legal principles. Appellant
bears, however, the ultimate burden of proving that he was terminated
wrongfully.” (Pugh v. See’s Candies, Inc. (1981) 116 Cal.App.3d 311, 329–330
[171 Cal.Rptr. 917], disapproved on other grounds in Guz v. Bechtel National
Inc. (2000) 24 Cal.4th 317, 350−351 [100 Cal. Rptr. 2d 352, 8 P.3d 1089],
internal citation omitted.)
• “[Plaintiff] contends that it was up to a jury to decide whether the [defendant]
‘honestly and objectively reasonably’ believed that her conduct was egregious
enough to be ‘gross misconduct’ and that the court therefore erred in granting
summary adjudication of her fourth cause of action for breach of contract.
Although the elements of the Cotran standard are triable to the jury, ‘if the
facts are undisputed or admit of only one conclusion, then summary judgment
may be entered . . . .’ ” (Serri,supra, 226 Cal.App.4th at p. 873.)
Secondary Sources
3 Witkin, Summary of California Law (10th ed. 2005) Agency and Employment,
§§ 208, 209
Chin et al., Cal. Practice Guide: Employment Litigation ¶¶ 4:270–4:271, 4:289 (The
Rutter Group)
1 Wrongful Employment Termination Practice (Cont.Ed.Bar 2d ed.) Contract
Actions, §§ 8.22–8.26
4 Wilcox, California Employment Law, Ch. 60, Liability for Wrongful Termination
and Discipline, § 60.09[5][b] (Matthew Bender)
21 California Forms of Pleading and Practice, Ch. 249, Employment Law:
Termination and Discipline, §§ 249.21, 249.43 (Matthew Bender)
10 California Points and Authorities, Ch. 100, Employer and Employee: Wrongful
Termination and Discipline, §§ 100.25, 100.29 (Matthew Bender)
California Civil Practice: Employment Litigation, § 6:19 (Thomson Reuters)
WRONGFUL TERMINATION CACI No. 2405
1341
0019