Procedural Posture

Petitioner corporate officer sought writ of mandate relief from an order from respondent Superior Court for Los Angeles County (California), which entered an order that sustained the real party in interest corporation's demurrer to petitioner's action for breach of an implied contract of employment and wrongful discharge on the ground that the action was precluded by Cal. Corp. Code § 312(b).

Nakase Law Firm is a trial attorney

Overview

Petitioner, a corporate officer, filed an action against real party in interest (RPI) corporation for wrongful discharge and breach of an implied contract. Respondent trial court sustained RPI's demurrer on the ground that Cal. Corp. Code § 312(b) foreclosed petitioner from stating a cause of action for wrongful discharge premised upon an implied agreement of non-termination except for good cause. On review, the court found that an implied contract under Cal. Civ. Code § 1621 was one in which the existence and terms were manifested by conduct. The court found that implied in fact terms stood on equal footing with express terms, and the legislature did not limit the application of § 312(b) to written or even express contracts. The court noted that the statute specified that any contract of employment was sufficient to overcome the assumption of otherwise at-will status. The court held that petitioner sufficiently stated a cause of action for wrongful termination based upon breach of implied contract and issued a peremptory writ of mandate that directed respondent to vacate its order sustaining RPI's demurrer and to enter a new order overruling the demurrer.

Outcome

A peremptory writ of mandate was issued that directed respondent trial court to vacate its order that sustained the real party in interest (RPI) corporation's demurrer because any contract of employment, including an implied contract, was sufficient to overcome the assumption of otherwise at-will status. The court ordered that a new order be entered overruling the RPI's demurrer.