 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Barton v. New United Motor Manufacturing3/26/1996
STRANKMAN, P. J.
We hold in this case that the statute of limitations for an action for wrongful discharge in violation of public policy is the one-year period provided by Code of Civil Procedure section 340, subdivision (3).
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On October 5, 1994, plaintiff Mark Terrance Barton filed a complaint against defendant New United Motor Manufacturing, Inc., for breach of contract and an intentional tort, alleging wrongful termination. Defendant removed the action to federal court, on the ground plaintiff's claims were preempted by federal law because they could be resolved only by reference to the collective bargaining agreement between defendant and plaintiff's authorized bargaining representative. The federal district court dismissed with prejudice plaintiff's claims for breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and intentional interference with a contractual relationship and prospective economic advantage. It remanded the only remaining claim, wrongful discharge in violation of public policy, to the superior court.
Plaintiff filed an amended complaint in superior court, alleging with more specificity that he was terminated in violation of public policy. He alleged that before October 1992, he complained to management at defendant's factory about certain unsafe working conditions. Defendant did not correct those conditions and plaintiff continued to complain. On October 12, 1992, he was terminated, allegedly in retaliation for reporting the unsafe conditions.
Defendant filed a demurrer, on the ground the action was barred by the one-year statute of limitations set forth in Code of Civil Procedure section 340, subdivision (3) (hereafter section 340 (3)). The trial court sustained the demurrer without leave to amend and dismissed the action. Plaintiff appeals, appearing, as he has throughout these proceedings, in propria persona.
Discussion
On appeal from a judgment or order of dismissal after the trial court has sustained a demurrer, this court must assume the truth of all properly pleaded material allegations of fact. ( Lazar v. Superior Court (1996) 12 Cal. 4th 631, 635 [49 Cal. Rptr. 2d 377, 909 P.2d 981].) Nevertheless, a trial court does not err in sustaining a demurrer without leave to amend where the complaint discloses on its face that the action is barred by the statute of limitations. ( Basin Construction Corp. v. Department of Water & Power (1988) 199 Cal. App. 3d 819, 823 [245 Cal. Rptr. 178]; 5 Witkin, Cal. Procedure (3d ed. 1985) Actions, § 912, p. 349.)
It is settled that an employer's discharge of an employee in violation of a fundamental public policy embodied in a constitutional or statutory provision gives rise to a tort action. ( Turner v. Anheuser-Busch, Inc. (1994) 7 Cal. 4th 1238, 1252 [32 Cal. Rptr. 2d 223, 876 P.2d 1022]; Gantt v. Sentry Insurance (1992) 1 Cal. 4th 1083, 1089-1090 [4 Cal. Rptr. 2d 874, 824 P.2d 680] (Gantt) ; Foley v. Interactive Data Corp. (1988) 47 Cal. 3d 654, 663 [254 Cal. Rptr. 211, 765 P.2d 373] (Foley); Tameny v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (1980) 27 Cal. 3d 167, 178 [164 Cal. Rptr. 839, 610 P.2d 1330] (Tameny).) An employer who fires an employee in retaliation for protesting unsafe working conditions violates fundamental public policy, and the discharged employee may bring a tort action for wrongful discharge in addition to his or her statutory remedies. ( Hentzel v. Singer Co. (1982) 138 Cal. App. 3d 290, 300-304 [188 Cal. Rptr. 159, 35 A.L.R.4th 1015]; see Greene v. Hawaiian Dredging Co. (1945) 26 Cal. 2d 245, 251 [157 P.2d 367]; Lab. Code, § 6310, subd. (a)(1), 6402.) The question in this ca
Page 1 2 3 4 5 California Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|