Blom v. N.G.K. Spark Plugs, Inc.

23 Citing cases

  1. Phillips v. St. Mary Regional Medical Center

    96 Cal.App.4th 218 (Cal. Ct. App. 2002)   Cited 51 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Concerning race, sex and retaliation, "FEHA's provisions prohibiting discrimination may provide the policy basis for a claim for wrongful discharge in violation of public policy."

    Section 8 reflects fundamental and firmly established public policy against employment discrimination based on certain classifications including race and sex. See, e.g., Rojo v. Kliger (1990) 52 Cal.3d 65, 88-91; Sistare-Meyer v. Young Men's Christian Assn. (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 10, 14-15; Badih v. Myers (1995) 36 Cal.App.4th 1289, 1296; Blom v. N.G.K. Spark Plugs (U.S.A.), Inc. (1992) 3 Cal.App.4th 382, 387. See Rojo v. Kliger, supra, 52 Cal.3d at page 90 (sex) ; Sistare-Meyer v. Young Men's Christian Assn., supra, 58 Cal.App.4th at pages 14-15 (race); Carmichael v. Alfano Temporary Personnel (1991) 233 Cal.App.3d 1126, 1132 (race and sex).

  2. B E Convalescent Ctr. v. St. Compensation Ins

    8 Cal.App.4th 78 (Cal. Ct. App. 1992)   Cited 72 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a termination of employment for which a tort action will lie is an intentional and wrongful act in which the harm is inherent

    A number of other examples can be cited. In Blom v. N.G.K. Spark Plugs (U.S.A.), Inc. (1992) 3 Cal.App.4th 382 [ 4 Cal.Rptr.2d 139], the court found an action in tort would lie for wrongful termination in retaliation for the employee's refusal to obey the employer's order to "Americanize" its predominantly Japanese staff, in violation of the FEHA. (3 Cal.App.4th at p. 389.) In Flait v. North American Watch Corp. (1992) 3 Cal.App.4th 467 [ 4 Cal.Rptr.2d 522], the court held that an action for wrongful termination in retaliation for the employee's resistance to his supervisor's sexual harassment of a subordinate, in violation of the FEHA, was not preempted by workers' compensation.

  3. Jones v. Lodge at Torrey Pines Partn.

    147 Cal.App.4th 475 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007)   Cited 7 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding individual supervisor can be held liable for retaliation under FEHA

    " ( Id. at p. 657.) Walrath v. Sprinkel (2002) 99 Cal.App.4th 1237 [ 121 Cal.Rptr.2d 806] ( Walrath) decided that a cause of action against a supervisory employee is not barred by Reno. Walrath stated: "[T]here is authority recognizing a common law cause of action for retaliatory wrongful discharge as well as a cause of action against an individual supervisor for retaliation in violation of FEHA. Blom v. N.G.K. Spark Plugs (U.S.A.), Inc. (1992) 3 Cal.App.4th 382 [ 4 Cal.Rptr.2d 139] and Carmichael v. Alfano Temporary Personnel (1991) 233 Cal.App.3d 1126 [ 285 Cal.Rptr. 143] recognize a common law cause of action for wrongful discharge in retaliation for an employee's action seeking to correct employment discrimination. (See also Stevenson v. Superior Court (1997) 16 Cal.4th 880 [ 66 Cal.Rptr.2d 888, 941 P.2d 1157] [recognizing common law cause of action for wrongful discharge in violation of public policy against age discrimination].)

  4. Gould v. Maryland Sound Industries, Inc.

    31 Cal.App.4th 1137 (Cal. Ct. App. 1995)   Cited 193 times
    Holding that discharge to avoid payment of wages is cognizable in tort as a wrongful discharge

    (1 Cal.4th at p. 1091.) In Blom v. N.G.K. Spark Plugs (U.S.A.), Inc. (1992) 3 Cal.App.4th 382 [ 4 Cal.Rptr.2d 139] and Collier v. Superior Court (1991) 228 Cal.App.3d 1117 [ 279 Cal.Rptr. 453] the courts upheld causes of action for tortious wrongful discharge where the plaintiffs alleged they were terminated for reporting violations of law to their employers. The court in Collier concluded reports of unlawful conduct to the employer are as much in the public interest as reports to a law enforcement agency.

  5. Parada v. City of Colton

    24 Cal.App.4th 356 (Cal. Ct. App. 1994)   Cited 6 times
    In Parada v. City of Colton, 24 Cal.App.4th 356, 29 Cal.Rptr.2d 309 (1994), the plaintiff alleged that he had been discharged for his enforcement or attempted enforcement of the building codes, ordinances and regulations and his failure to ignore violations of those codes and ordinances.

    In addition, Colton's terminating Parada for his attempts to correct certain Colton officials' noncompliance with the comprehensive laws regulating building and construction gives rise to Parada's wrongful retaliatory discharge cause of action based on breaches of the public policy underlying those laws. Blom v. N.G.K. Spark Plugs (U.S.A.), Inc. (1992) 3 Cal.App.4th 382, 389 [ 4 Cal.Rptr.2d 139] held that: "In sum, Tameny [v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (1980) 27 Cal.3d 167 ( 164 Cal.Rptr. 839, 610 P.2d 1330, 9 A.L.R. 4th 314)] and its progeny confirm, implicitly and explicitly, that discharge of an employee in retaliation for resisting employer violations of laws that secure important public policies contravenes those policies, and gives rise to a common law action in tort. (Accord, Collier v. Superior Court (1991) 228 Cal.App.3d 1117, 1127 [ 279 Cal.Rptr. 453]. . . .)"

  6. Harris v. Atlantic Richfield Co.

    14 Cal.App.4th 70 (Cal. Ct. App. 1993)   Cited 56 times
    Holding that a franchisee cannot bring a tort claim against the franchisor for a breach of written agreement in violation of public policy

    (2) An action for wrongful discharge will lie when the basis of the discharge contravenes a fundamental public policy. ( Rojo v. Kliger (1990) 52 Cal.3d 65, 91 [ 276 Cal.Rptr. 130, 801 P.2d 373]; Blom v. N.G.K. Spark Plugs (U.S.A.), Inc. (1992) 3 Cal.App.4th 382, 388, 389 [ 4 Cal.Rptr.2d 139] .) However, the public policy must be grounded in constitutional or statutory provisions.

  7. Winarto v. Toshiba Am. Electronics Components

    274 F.3d 1276 (9th Cir. 2001)   Cited 293 times
    Holding that "[a]n unwarranted reduction in performance review scores can constitute evidence of pretext in retaliation cases" under Title VII

    See Green v. Ralee Eng'g Co., 19 Cal.4th 66, 75-80, 78 Cal.Rptr.2d 16, 960 P.2d 1046, 1051-54 (1998) (summarizing doctrine); Blom v. N.G.K. Spark Plugs (U.S.A.), Inc., 4 Cal.Rptr.2d 139, 143, 3 Cal.App.4th 382, 389 (1992). Winarto's selection for termination rests on Taylor's low performance review, which the record supports as an act of retaliation for Winarto's complaints. Because the firing was premised on acts that (1) violated federal and state laws that (2) furthered some policy in the public interest that (3) were well established at the time of the discharge and (4) were substantial and fundamental, defendants are also liable for the California common law tort of wrongful discharge.

  8. Brooks v. City of San Mateo

    229 F.3d 917 (9th Cir. 2000)   Cited 1,428 times   8 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a similar single instance of sexual harassment was not sufficiently severe or pervasive to establish a hostile work environment claim

    Asserting one's civil rights, as Brooks did by complaining of Selvaggio's conduct, is a protected activity under Title VII and FEHA. See EEOC v. Crown Zellerbach Corp., 720 F.2d 1008, 1013 (9th Cir. 1983); Blom v. N.G.K. Spark Plugs (USA), Inc., 3 Cal.App.4th 382, 388, 4 Cal. Rptr.2d 139 (Cal.Ct.App. 1992). Brooks's complaint about Selvaggio's harassment thus satisfies the first step of our inquiry.

  9. Brooks v. City of San Mateo

    214 F.3d 1082 (9th Cir. 2000)   Cited 17 times
    Holding that single incident in which a fellow employee touched plaintiffs stomach and then her breast under her sweater did not rise to the level of harassment under Title VII

    Asserting one's civil rights, as Brooks did by complaining of Selvaggio's conduct, is a protected activity under Title VII and FEHA. See EEOC v. Crown Zellerbach Corp., 720 F.2d 1008, 1013 (9th Cir. 1983); Blom v N.G.K. Spark Plugs (USA), Inc., 3 Cal.App.4th 382, 388 (Cal.Ct.App. 1992). Brooks's complaint about Selvaggio's harassment thus satisfies the first step of our inquiry.

  10. Strother v. S. Cal. Permanente Med. Grp.

    79 F.3d 859 (9th Cir. 1996)   Cited 409 times
    Holding that in the absence of the state's highest court decision on state law, "a federal court must predict how the highest state court would decide the issue"

    While § 8 has been expanded to protect more classifications of people and to cover "employment," the word "disqualified" remains, indicating that § 8 governs actions which result in the complete exclusion of an individual from employment with a particular employer, and does not reach conduct affecting particular aspects of an individual's job. See, e.g., Rankins, 593 P.2d at 856-57 (finding that a teacher was wrongfully threatened with discharge for taking religious holidays and holding that "article I, § 8 forbids disqualification of employees for religious practices unless reasonable accommodation by the employer is impossible without undue hardship"); Badih v. Myers, 43 Cal.Rptr. 2d 229, 232-33 (Ct.App. 1995) (holding that a woman terminated because of pregnancy could maintain cause of action for wrongful discharge in contravention of public policy because § 8 prohibits pregnancy discrimination); Blom v. N.G.K. Spark Plugs (U.S.A.), Inc., 3 Cal.App.4th 382, 387, 4 Cal.Rptr. 2d 139, 141-42 (Ct.App. 1992) (following Rojo in finding that plaintiff could bring wrongful discharge claim based on § 8 because of public policy against national origin discrimination); Carmichael v. Alfano Temporary Personnel, 233 Cal.App.3d 1126, 1131-1132, 285 Cal.Rptr. 143, 146-47 (Ct.App. 1991) (following Rojo in finding wrongful termination claim based on policy against racial discrimination in § 8); see also Merrell v. All Seasons Resorts, Inc., 720 F. Supp. 815, 819 (C.D. Cal. 1989) (finding private cause of action under § 8 where pregnant woman with permanent position was offered temporary position with fewer fringe benefits and voluntarily resigned); Froyd v. Cook, 681 F. Supp. 669, 673 n. 11, 676 (E.D. Cal. 1988) (former police dispatcher alleging sexual harassment and retaliatory constructive discharge stated claim for discharge in violation of public policy articulated in § 8); Smithberg v. Merico, Inc., 575 F. Supp. 80, 83 (C.D. Cal. 1983) (finding that employee who was allegedly discharged for ob