Superior Court, City and County of San Francisco (California)

Procedural Posture

Defendant employer appealed the judgment of the Superior Court, City and County of San Francisco (California), which awarded plaintiff $ 15,000 in economic damages in wrongful discharge from employment action.

Overview

Plaintiff was employed in the law office of defendant. Plaintiff informed defendant that she was pregnant. Within a week, defendant reduced plaintiff's hours and pay by half. Plaintiff retained counsel, who wrote a letter to defendant. The letter advised that defendant was discriminating against plaintiff on account of her pregnancy. Soon after the letter, defendant fired plaintiff. Plaintiff brought suit, and the jury returned a special verdict finding defendant did not fire plaintiff because she was pregnant, but did fire her in retaliation for the letter sent by her attorney. Plaintiff was awarded economic damages. On appeal, defendant contended that Cal. Lab. Code § 923 did not protect plaintiff because it only applied to collective bargaining or non-union self-organizing among employees. The court determined that § 923 protected individual employees. The concerted action of several employees was not necessary to trigger § 923.

Outcome: How to give two weeks notice

Judgment affirmed; statutory employee protection did not apply only to collective bargaining or non-union self-organizing among employees; statute protected individual employees, concerted action of several employees was not necessary to trigger protection.

Procedural Posture

Plaintiff ex-partner sought review of the decision from the Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco (California), which determined that the ex-partner's breach of contract action against defendant partners failed to state a claim and dismissed the complaint.

Overview

The ex-partner retired from the partnership and assigned his partnership rights to his brother. The buyout agreement specifically provided for an end of year accounting and payment to the brother of the ex-partner's interest in any profits. The brother, under a second agreement, was required to pay the profits over to the ex-partner. The partners failed to have the accounting and the ex-partner filed an action for breach of contract. The trial court determined that the ex-partner failed to state a cause of action because he had assigned all of his interest in the partnership to his brother and, therefore, had parted with all of his interest. The ex-partner challenged the decision and the court reversed. The assignment of his interest was specifically conditioned on an accounting and payment of profits to his brother. He retained an interest under the agreement to the profits for the year in question and sufficiently stated a cause of action for the profits. It was immaterial that the profits were to have been paid to the brother and then remitted to the ex-partner under a separate agreement. The cause was remanded for trial.

Outcome

The court reversed the dismissal of the breach of contract action filed by the ex-partner against the partners.