Summary of Facts
Sharon signed a contract is for a three-year term and she can only be terminated for just cause. After six months, she is terminated because she sold only one apartment during her first six months on the job. Sharon would like to know your opinion as to whether she might have a cause of action against her employer for wrongful termination.
Issues
1. Does the plaintiff have the right to sue her employer for wrongful termination. 2. Does the employer have a good defense on just cause of firing.
Applicable
In the case of Steffens v. Regus Group, PLC, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 116536 the court denied a motion for a new trail. Under the rule Rule 49 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure were there is broadly contemplates …show more content…
As in the case of Zhang v. American Gem Seafoods, Inc. 339 F.3d 1020, 1031 (9th Cir. 2003). The Court has broad discretion to make a conclusion which kind of verdict to ask for, and this discretion extends to determining the content and layout of the verdict form, and any interrogatories submitted to the jury, provided the questions asked are reasonably capable of an interpretation that would allow the jury to address all factual issues essential to judgment. As in the case of U.S. v. Real Property Located at 20832 Big Rock Dr., Malibu, Cal. 902655, 51 F.3d 1402, 1408 (9th Cir. 1995); as well as Mateyko v. Felix, 924 F.2d 824, 827 (9th Cir. 1991). In this case, leaving the punitive damages aside, the Court asked the jury to return a general verdict on Steffens's claim and announce damages, which is a perfectly proper thing to do, finally under code Zhang, 339 F.3d at 1031. Sharon wrongfultermination is a violation under case U.S. v. Doe, 705 F.3d 1134, 1148 (9th Cir. 2013). Where in wrongful termination in violation of public policy, and that the instruction at issue defined the elements of that …show more content…
Brady Co./San Diego, Inc., 242 Cal. App. 4th 137 the court reversed and matter remanded. Wherein wrongful termination in violation under Labor Code sections 132a and 3602 and/or the Labor Code section 132a one-year statute of limitations, and he had not pleaded any public policy that may have been violated by his termination. As in the case of American Airlines, Inc. v. County of San Mateo, supra, 12 Cal.4th at pp. 1117–1118; Alliance Mortgage Co. v. Rothwell, supra, 10 Cal.4th at p. 1232. In the case or Beaumont-Jacques v. Farmers Group, Inc. (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 1138, 1142 [159 Cal. Rptr as well as in the case of Martinez v. Combs (2010) 49 Cal.4th 35, 68 [109 Cal. Rptr. 3d 514, 231 P.3d 259].) The court found in these cases that the evidence in the light most favorable to the appellant and resolve all evidentiary disputes and ambiguities in his or her favor. As the same in the case Acuna v. San Diego Gas & Electric Co. (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 1402 [159 Cal. Rptr. 3d 749], did not expressly address or decide the issue of what statute of limitations applies to a common law tort cause of action for wrongful termination in violation of public policy. Finally, in the case of Williams v. Pacific Mutual Life Ins. Co. (1986) 186 Cal.App.3d 941 [231 Cal. Rptr. 234], is in factually inapposite because it did not address or decide what statute of limitations applies to a common law tort cause of action for wrongful termination in violation of public