|
|
Lindberg v. California Dep't of Education10/31/2005
ing to do.
When Lindberg continued to complain that nothing was being done about the fraud, his computer was seized and all his word processing files, including reports of fraud, were destroyed.
Lindberg was later assigned to Educational Options, but was denied review training, had difficulty obtaining case files and was excluded from staff meetings. He applied for three vacant positions, but was turned down for all of them. Despite outstanding qualifications and an impressive collection of letters of recommendation, Lindberg was deprived of even the opportunity to interview for a consulting job similar to the one he had held before; instead, the job was given to a special education teacher with no experience in the field. These actions were at least as serious and damaging as those perpetrated in Ray and Akers.
D. Constructive Discharge
Defendants also challenge the sufficiency of the evidence to support the jury's implied finding that their conduct amounted to constructive discharge. Pointing out that Lindberg suffered from a variety of health ailments, they assert that "the record is undisputed that Mr. Lindberg's decision to retire was triggered by his second heart attack," and was not the result of any of their actions.
"Constructive discharge occurs when the employer's conduct effectively forces an employee to resign. Although the employee may say, `I quit,' the employment relationship is actually severed involuntarily by the employer's acts, against the employee's will. As a result, a constructive discharge is legally regarded as a firing rather than a resignation." (Turner v. Anheuser-Busch, Inc. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 1238, 1244-1245.) "The conditions giving rise to the resignation must be sufficiently extraordinary and egregious to overcome the normal motivation of a competent, diligent, and reasonable employee to remain on the job to earn a livelihood and to serve his or her employer." (Id. at p. 1246.) An essential element of a constructive discharge claim is "`that the adverse working conditions must be so intolerable that any reasonable employee would resign rather than endure such conditions.'" (Id. at p. 1247.) The standard is an objective one. (Id. at p. 1248.)
Defendants' arguments may be distilled into a general claim that there was no proximate cause between their mistreatment of Lindberg and his termination. A defendant's conduct is a cause in fact of an injury if it is a "substantial factor" in bringing about the harm. (Rutherford v. Owens-Illinois, Inc. (1997) 16 Cal.4th 953, 969 (Rutherford), citing Rest.2d Torts, ยง 431, subd. (a), p. 428; Wilson v. Blue Cross of So. California (1990) 222 Cal.App.3d 660, 672.) " he issue of causation is subject to the familiar standard of appellate review. As a court of review, we indulge in every reasonable inference to uphold the verdict if possible and defer to the jury's assessment of the credibility of
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 Show All Case Laws California PEO
|