Category Archives: Wrongful Termination

New Wrongful Termination Whiteboard Video

The above video was the first in a series of educational videos about employment law.  To learn more about this type of case, visit our main wrongful termination page.

Comments Off on New Wrongful Termination Whiteboard Video

January 23, 2017 · 8:15 am

What Every Employee Needs to Know About Pretext

Almost every day our firm receives calls from potential clients claiming they were wrongfully terminated. What is often at the heart of the lawsuit is what the employer said was the reason for the termination versus the real reason for the termination. In order to prevail in the employment lawsuit the employee must show that the employer’s reason for terminating the employee was a pretext, or made up excuse, as a cover up for an illegal reason. This is also called a pretextual termination.

What is Pretext in a Termination Lawsuit?

A pretext is a phony excuse or a made up reason that the employer uses to fire an employee. A pretext is basically an excuse that is used to cover up the true and illegal reason for the termination. Some of the common pretexts we hear are “poor performance,” the employee “just does not fit” in at the company, “restructuring” or “reorganization,” and “financial reasons” or cutbacks.

How does an employee go about proving the reason is a pretext?

In order for an employee to show that the employer’s reason is a pretext, the employee must show either that it is more likely than not that a discriminatory reason motivated the employer than the pretextual reason, or the employer’s explanation is not credible. It should be noted that a mere mistake made by the employer is not a pretext, rather a pretext is a phony, deliberate excuse used to cover up the illegal reason.

Common Example

Here is a pretty common factual scenario of when an employer uses a pretext to fire an employee. Jane Doe was fired abruptly and arbitrarily days after complaining to Human Resources about being sexually harassed by a valued executive supervisor. Up until her complaint, she performed well at work. However, Jane’s employer told her that she was being fired because she just did not fit in anymore and it was not working out. That struck Jane as odd as she had been working there for years and was a valuable employee with no write ups or reprimands. Thus, it seems that Jane was fired for reporting sexual harassment in the workplace, not because she did not fit in anymore.

In this hypothetical the employer’s reason here is a pretext, and a way to cover up the real reason for the termination – the employee complained about harassment, and would rather just fire an her rather than a more valuable executive. This scenario happens quite a bit, especially in discrimination, hostile work environment, and wrongful termination cases.

At the end of the day, an employer almost never tells an employee they are firing him or her for the illegal reason. Usually, the employer will make up a reason as to why they are terminating the employee, and the illegal reason will have to be proved through circumstantial evidence. But just because the employer provides a pretext that may seem valid on its face does mean the employee does not have a case.

If you were recently terminated out of the blue and for an arbitrary reason, it cannot hurt to contact an employment attorney to investigate your legal rights and options.

Leave a Comment

Filed under Wrongful Termination

California Labor Law Attorneys: Holding Employers to their Promises

California is an at-will employment state, which means that an employee can be fired for good cause, bad cause, or any cause (so long as the cause is not in violation of California or federal law). However, there is an exception to this. Under the implied in fact contract exception; an employer cannot fire an employee if the employee can show that there is an established and implied employment contract between the parties.

Courts consider the following factors to determine if there is an implied-in-fact contract: employee’s length of service, employer’s policies and practices, and conduct or communication by the employer reflecting assurances of continued employment. California labor law attorneys ensure that employers will be held accountable if they breach an implied in fact contract with their employee.

Employment Contract Employment Case – Challenging the At-Will Doctrine

In Joseph Sebastian v. Christ the King Retreat Center, the plaintiff witnessed a fellow employee engaged in bizarre behavior in a conference room by throwing garbage on the floor, acting irrationally, and shaking objects at witnessing employees. The employer defendant terminated the plaintiff after he complained that it was a safety issue for himself and other employees.

Among other things, Plaintiff argued that he was terminated in breach of an implied in fact contract. Plaintiff was an employee there for roughly seven years. Plaintiff alleged that he was told after he completed his probationary period that the job was his, he has tenure, and that he has a job as long he wants it. Further, upon being hired, plaintiff was given a company handbook contained a provision regarding a discipline policy.

The At-Will Doctrine Lost

Defendant argued that plaintiff was an at will employee and thus could be terminated without good cause. Defendant also argued that plaintiff was terminated because he was insubordinate on multiple occasions during his employment. The jury was not convinced by the defendant’s arguments, and awarded plaintiff $362,296 for breach of an implied in fact contract.

At the end of the day, this case is a win for California employees. If an employer promises an employee certain benefits or long-term employment, and then fires that employee without good cause, then the employee may have a viable case despite California’s strong at-will policy. If you have been wrongfully terminated, and your employer made promises to you during the course of your employment, then call a California employment lawyer immediately to see if there is any legal recourse.

Leave a Comment

Filed under Employment Contract, Wrongful Termination

Protecting Medical Professional Whistleblowers

It is the public policy of California to encourage patients, nurses, doctors and other members of health facilities to speak up against suspected unsafe patient care and poor health facility conditions. It is still very common for members of health facilities to witness first hand poor patient treatment and poor patient conditions. Therefore, California has passed a unique whistleblower law, Health & Safety Code 1278.5, for medical professionals.

Basically, under 1278.5, it is unlawful for an employer of a health facility to retaliate against any patient or employee of the health facility for complaining or reporting (blowing the whistle) unsafe patient care or poor patient conditions to the employer. Employment attorneys like Mr. Robertson are there to ensure that health facility employers are held accountable under this law.

Recent Verdict – Cancer Patients and Bad Surgeons Lead to Whistleblower Complaint

In a very recent case out of the California judicial system, Wascher v. Southern California Permanente Group, plaintiff was a surgeon who worked for defendant from 2009 to 2011. During his employment, plaintiff complained about unsafe patient care to the defendant. Plaintiff made the following complaints to his employer: access to surgery for cancer patients took too long and unqualified surgeons were handling cancer cases that they should not be handling. In response to his complaints, rather than addressing the plaintiff’s legitimate complaints, the defendant barred him from becoming a partner. Plaintiff hired an employee rights attorney to protect his rights.

Plaintiff argued that he was retaliated against for complaining about unsafe patient care in the workplace. Defendant argued that the plaintiff was not barred from becoming a partner because he was not a good fit. Defendant also argued that he did not make complaints, but asked for certain preferences that would benefit himself as a surgeon. The jury was not convinced by the defense and sided with the plaintiff. The jury awarded plaintiff $1,750,000 for retaliation under Health & Safety 1278.5.

This case was a huge victory for employees of health facilities, whether it be doctors, nurses, o medical staff assistance. Wascher v. Southern California Permanente Group reinforces California’s policy of encouraging members of health facilities to speak up against suspected unsafe patient care and poor health facility conditions. This is a very important law as it not only protects employees who act as patient advocates, but also protects the pateints themselves to ensure that Californians are treated in a safe and clean health facility. If you are an employee of a health facility and you feel that you have been retaliated against for reporting unsafe patient conditions or acting as an advocate for patients adverse to your employer, then call an employee rights attorney immediately.

Leave a Comment

Filed under Health Care, Whistleblower, Wrongful Termination

Employment Law Attorneys

California is an at-will state. Thus, employers often believe that they can fire an at-will employee at any time for any reason. This is false. Under California law, an employer can fire an employee for any reason except for a reason that violates public policy. Generally, being terminated for a reason that violates public policy overrides the at-will employment doctrine. However, the question comes down to what constitutes a violation of public policy? This is a good question for an employment law attorney to answer.

Wrongful Termination Verdict

In Macdonald v. Ascent Media Group, Inc., et al, the plaintiff was hired as a creative director for defendant, a Hollywood visual effects company. The plaintiff complained to a senior executive at the company that his supervisor was using cocaine at work. The very next day the plaintiff was terminated. Fortunately, plaintiff retained employment law attorneys and sued company for wrongful termination.

At trial, the plaintiff argued that he was wrongfully terminated in violation of public policy for reporting his supervisor’s drug use, and that the plaintiff was fired in order to protect the reputation of the company and the supervisor. The defendant argued that the plaintiff was fired because the company was concerned about protecting the privacy of its employees. The jury found that plaintiff was wrongfully terminated in violation of public policy and subsequently awarded the plaintiff $450,000.

Employment Law Attorneys Can Help You

Other examples of reasons for termination that violate public policy include gender discrimination, race discrimination, family or medical leave discrimination, political activity, whistle-blowing, refusing to sign a non-compete agreement, and testifying at a hearing. This is not an exclusive list of reasons for termination that violate public policy. There are many more reasons that qualify as wrongful termination. If you feel you have been wrongfully terminated, and you would like to know whether your employer has in fact wrongfully terminated you, contact an employment law attorney immediately.

Leave a Comment

Filed under Wrongful Termination

Wrongful Termination Lawyer

Wrongful Termination Lawyer | Branigan Robertson Termination LawyerThere are many lawyers across California. There are approximately 1500 or so who would classify themselves exclusively as a wrongful termination lawyer. A wrongful termination lawyer is someone who exclusively represents employees alleging that they were wrongfully terminated from their job. Usually, these lawyers work on a contingency fee which means they only get paid if they are successful in recovering a sum of money for the client.

Who is the Best Wrongful Termination Lawyer?

There are lots of fantastic wrongful termination lawyers in California. However, the best lawyer on the planet will do a terrible job on your case if he or she does not have the time or energy to dedicate to it. There are numerous public accounts of great attorney’s who simply became too busy that they failed to file someone’s case on time or who neglected the case and it got dismissed for failure to prosecute.

There are many different types and sizes of wrongful discharge cases, and it would be wise to hire the attorney who seems best suited for your case. That could be a “big-name” attorney in a highrise, or it might be your cousin’s friend who just started practicing employment law six months ago and doesn’t even have an office yet.

Therefore, the best attorney for your case isn’t necessarily the guy who recently got a multimillion dollar verdict. It is more likely the attorney who believes in your case and is willing to invest his time, money, and efforts to ensure its success. Therefore, we feel it is extremely important that you feel comfortable that your lawyer is going to give your case the effort that is necessary. Some cases require more, some less. It all depends.

Branigan Robertson – A Different Kind of Wrongful Termination Lawyer

Mr. Robertson takes his job seriously, and he only takes cases where the employer has committed a serious wrong which damaged the employee in a significant way. The results he has obtained so far in his career prove that his litigation and negotiation strategy work extremely well. Mr. Robertson is also picky – only taking cases in which he is 100% confident that his client is telling the truth and nothing but the truth.

Mr. Robertson only takes a few cases each year and puts a lot of effort into each one. Some lawyers have the mentality that “more cases means I’ll make more money.” Rarely that proves to be true. Therefore, if you believe that you have a case, we urge you to call our office to see if Mr. Robertson is interested. Even if he doesn’t take your case, he will likely refer to you someone he believes will have the time and energy to throw themselves behind your employment case.

Learn about types of wrongful discharge cases by visiting our wrongful termination page and then call to receive a free consultation.

Leave a Comment

Filed under Wrongful Termination

California Employment Lawyer

Branigan Robertson is a California employment lawyer. His firm exclusively represents employees across California in lawsuits against employers. Our consultations are always free and Mr. Robertson exclusively works on a contingency fee basis. If you’ve been wrongfully terminated or harassed at work, visit our home page.

Finding a California employment lawyer can be frustrating. Labor attorney’s like Mr. Robertson get lots and lots of calls everyday from people who have been wrongfully terminated. This article is meant to provide some information to the individuals who are looking for a California Employment Lawyer, but have not yet found an attorney who will take their case.

California Employment Lawyer’s are Busy – Be Patient

California employment attorney’s and their staff are very busy servicing their current clients. Many lawyers cannot call you back right away as they may be writing a motion, in trial, or taking a deposition. It is when they have a few free moments that they look at potential new cases. Branigan Robertson tries to call people back with 24 hours. However, sometimes this is impossible. If you do not receive a call back in a few days, please call us again and leave us a message. If you don’t hear from us, please don’t hesitate to call another law firm. Their are lots of good lawyers out there, you just need to find one who believes in your case and has enough time to properly handle it.

Why A Lawyer May Turn Down Your Case

Unfortunately, Mr. Robertson cannot take every case. Mr. Robertson is a contingency lawyer and doesn’t get paid unless the case is successful. Obviously, with that kind of fee structure, Mr. Robertson is extremely selective and can only take a handful of cases each year. But do not assume that you don’t have a case! Call us for a free consultation. Even if Mr. Robertson turns down your case, you still might have a great case and he will likely refer you to another California employment lawyer that he believes is better suited for your case.

Leave a Comment

Filed under Harassment, Wrongful Termination