Termination Of Employee Because He Complained To Police About Threats And Assault By Co-Worker Is Grounds For Wrongful Termination Claim

In Franklin v. Monadnock Company, (— Cal.Rptr.3d —, 2007 WL 1501711, Cal.App. 2 Dist., May 24, 2007), a California Court of Appeal considered a wrongful termination claim from an employee who complained to his employer about threats made by a co-worker, then complained to police after he was assaulted by the co-worker, and was then terminated because of his complaints.

The court found that the employee’s allegations were sufficient to support a wrongful termination claim, based on public policies that require employers to provide a safe and secure workplace and encourage employees to report credible threats of violence in the workplace.

Facts

Calvin Franklin (“Franklin”), employed by the Monadnock Company (“Monadnock”), complained to the company’s human resources department that a co-worker had threatened to kill him and other co-workers. Franklin alleged that the company took no steps to protect him, and that a week later the co-worker tried to stab him with a screwdriver, an assault that Franklin reported to the police. Franklin was then terminated and he sued for wrongful termination.

The trial court sustained the company’s demurrer, stating that Franklin did not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. Franklin appealed.

Decision

The question, the court said, was whether the circumstances leading to Franklin’s termination involved a fundamental public policy contained in a constitutional or statutory provision.

The court cited City of Palo Alto v. Service Employees International Union (1999) 77 Cal.App.4th 327, which concluded that Labor Code Section 6400 and Civil Procedure Code Section 527.8, when read together, express an explicit public policy requiring employers to take reasonable steps to provide a safe and secure workplace, which includes the duty to adequately address potential workplace violence. By that standard, Franklin’s allegations were sufficient to warrant protection from termination for making a complaint about working conditions he reasonably believed to be unsafe, the court said.

The court also found that a public policy was served by protecting Franklin from termination. Quoting Collier v. Superior Court (1991) 228 Cal App.3d 1117, the court held that “an employee who is terminated in retaliation for reporting to his or her employer reasonably suspected illegal conduct by other employees that harms the public as well as the employer, has a cause of action for wrongful discharge.” Attempting to prevent workplace violence by reporting—whether to his employer or the police—threats, and then an actual assault, served the public interest, the court said.

The trial court’s order dismissing Franklin’s complaint was reversed.