17 Cited authorities

Guz v. Bechtel National, Inc.
24 Cal.4th 317 (Cal. 2000) Cited 3,324 times 4 Legal Analyses
Holding that an implied covenant "cannot be endowed with an existence independent of its contractual underpinnings. It cannot impose substantive duties or limits on the contracting parties beyond those incorporated in the specific terms of their agreement."
Badie v. Bank of America
67 Cal.App.4th 779 (Cal. Ct. App. 1998) Cited 1,302 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that a credit card company could not introduce an alternative dispute resolution provision through a "bill stuffer" where nothing in the original agreement mentioned dispute resolution
Xin Liu v. Amway Corp.
347 F.3d 1125 (9th Cir. 2003) Cited 388 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding employee adequately notified her employer when she said that she needed to take several months of maternity leave
Stevenson v. Superior Court
16 Cal.4th 880 (Cal. 1997) Cited 425 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that plaintiffs must establish that the violated public policy is "fundamental and substantial"
Faust v. California Portland Cement Co.
150 Cal.App.4th 864 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007) Cited 252 times 2 Legal Analyses
Finding fact issue on plaintiff's FEHA disability discrimination claim with respect to employer's knowledge where a physician's work status report advised employer that plaintiff was "unable to perform regular job duties..."
Wilson v. County of Orange
169 Cal.App.4th 1185 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009) Cited 229 times 2 Legal Analyses
Finding employer engaged in interactive process because employee got "exactly what she wanted—albeit after a series of temporary accommodations"
Cuiellette v. City of Los Angeles
194 Cal.App.4th 757 (Cal. Ct. App. 2011) Cited 131 times 4 Legal Analyses
Noting similar elements under FEHA
Gould v. Maryland Sound Industries, Inc.
31 Cal.App.4th 1137 (Cal. Ct. App. 1995) Cited 191 times
Holding that discharge to avoid payment of wages is cognizable in tort as a wrongful discharge
Align Technology, Inc. v. Tran
179 Cal.App.4th 949 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009) Cited 80 times
Holding "legislative purpose of former section 439, the predecessor of section 426.30 . . . was to provide for the settlement, in a single action, of all conflicting claims between the parties arising out of the same transaction" and to "avoid a multiplicity of actions"
Holmes v. General Dynamics Corp.
17 Cal.App.4th 1418 (Cal. Ct. App. 1993) Cited 113 times
Affirming judgment for an employee who was terminated "for disclosing to management the company's violation of the false statements act"

Order Submitted Matter

17 Cited authorities

Holding that an implied covenant "cannot be endowed with an existence independent of its contractual underpinnings. It cannot impose substantive duties or limits on the contracting parties beyond those incorporated in the specific terms of their agreement."

Holding that a credit card company could not introduce an alternative dispute resolution provision through a "bill stuffer" where nothing in the original agreement mentioned dispute resolution

Holding employee adequately notified her employer when she said that she needed to take several months of maternity leave

Holding that plaintiffs must establish that the violated public policy is "fundamental and substantial"

Finding fact issue on plaintiff's FEHA disability discrimination claim with respect to employer's knowledge where a physician's work status report advised employer that plaintiff was "unable to perform regular job duties..."

Finding employer engaged in interactive process because employee got "exactly what she wanted—albeit after a series of temporary accommodations"

Noting similar elements under FEHA

Holding that discharge to avoid payment of wages is cognizable in tort as a wrongful discharge

Holding "legislative purpose of former section 439, the predecessor of section 426.30 . . . was to provide for the settlement, in a single action, of all conflicting claims between the parties arising out of the same transaction" and to "avoid a multiplicity of actions"

Affirming judgment for an employee who was terminated "for disclosing to management the company's violation of the false statements act"