Skip to content

Menu

LexBlog, Inc. logo
CommunitySub-MenuPublishersChannelsProductsSub-MenuBlog ProBlog PlusBlog PremierMicrositeSyndication PortalsAboutContactResourcesSubscribeSupport
Join
Search
Close

At-Will Employees May Sue Their Employer For Misrepresentation Of Intended Job Duties

By Mark Theodore & Wesley C. Shelton on February 25, 2022
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn

A recent California Court of Appeal decision confirms that a California employer may be liable to an at-will employee who relocates to accept a new employment position, when the employer’s description of the kind or character of the job was misleading.  In the case Kenneth Allen White v. Smule, Inc., the Court of Appeal reversed a trial court decision to grant summary judgment in favor of the employer, after the trial court found that an at-will employee could not rely on an employer’s assurances of long-term employment.  The Court of Appeal found that, although an at-will employee may not relocate with an expectation of long-term employment, an at-will employee could rely on an employer’s misrepresentations concerning other aspects of the promised employment, including the kind and character of the job.

In the instant dispute, the Plaintiff employee alleged that while interviewing for the job, the employer told him it “was planning aggressive expansion over the course of the next few years and needed an experienced project manager to lead in building out and managing teams of project managers” in the San Francisco area.  Relying on the employer’s representations, the Plaintiff employee accepted the position and relocated from Washington to California.   Five months later, the employer eliminated the Plaintiff employee’s job position, and the Plaintiff employee’s employment, saying that it had moved the position to its Bulgaria office.  Based on these facts, the Court of Appeal found that a trier of fact could conclude that the employer “never intended to employ someone in the lead project manager position [and] instead desired nothing more… than a consultation or improvement plan on how [the company] could enhance its operations.”

California Labor Code section 970 prohibits employers from inducing an employee to relocate and accept employment with knowingly false representations regarding the kind, character, existence, or duration of work.  The Court of Appeal’s decision establishes that an employer may not cite to at-will employment alone as a defense to an employee’s claim under section 970.  Even in the context of at-will employment, an employer may still violate section 970 by mischaracterizing job duties, job title, reporting structures, compensation, working hours, benefits, or other terms and conditions of employment.

Employers can mitigate the risk of an employee making a section 970 claim by thoroughly evaluating staffing needs prior to extending an offer of employment, and detailing the terms and conditions of employment, including a detailed description of proposed job duties, in a written offer of employment.

Photo of Mark Theodore Mark Theodore

Mark Theodore is a partner in the Labor & Employment Law Department. He has devoted his practice almost exclusively to representing management in all aspects of traditional labor law matters throughout the U.S.

Mark has extensive experience representing employers in all matters before

…

Mark Theodore is a partner in the Labor & Employment Law Department. He has devoted his practice almost exclusively to representing management in all aspects of traditional labor law matters throughout the U.S.

Mark has extensive experience representing employers in all matters before the NLRB, including representation petitions, jurisdictional disputes and the handling of unfair labor practice charges from the date they are filed through trial and appeal. Mark has acted as lead negotiator for dozens of major companies in nearly all industries, including multi-unit, multi-location, multi-employer and multi-union bargaining.

Read more about Mark TheodoreEmail
Show more Show less
Wesley C. Shelton

Wesley counsels clients in a wide range of labor and employment legal matters, including wage and hour issues, personnel policies and procedures, employee discipline matters, leaves of absence, WARN Act compliance, and labor and employment law issues that arise in corporate transactions. He…

Wesley counsels clients in a wide range of labor and employment legal matters, including wage and hour issues, personnel policies and procedures, employee discipline matters, leaves of absence, WARN Act compliance, and labor and employment law issues that arise in corporate transactions. He also drafts and reviews employment agreements, independent contractor agreements, commission and bonus plans, separation agreements, and other documents related to the entire life cycle of the employment relationship.

Wesley has litigated a variety of unlawful termination cases in state and federal court. He previously served as a Foreign Service Officer with the U.S. Department of State, working at U.S. Embassies and Consulates in West Africa and Mexico.

Read more about Wesley C. SheltonEmail
Show more Show less
  • Posted in:
    Employment & Labor
  • Blog:
    California Employment Law Update
  • Organization:
    Proskauer Rose LLP
  • Article: View Original Source

LexBlog, Inc. logo
Facebook LinkedIn Twitter RSS
Real Lawyers
99 Park Row
  • About LexBlog
  • Careers
  • Press
  • Contact LexBlog
  • Privacy Policy
  • Editorial Policy
  • Disclaimer
  • Terms of Service
  • RSS Terms of Service
  • Products
  • Blog Pro
  • Blog Plus
  • Blog Premier
  • Microsite
  • Syndication Portals
  • LexBlog Community
  • 1-800-913-0988
  • Submit a Request
  • Support Center
  • System Status
  • Resource Center

New to the Network

  • GovCon & Trade
  • Pro Policyholder
  • The Way on FDA
  • Crypto Digest
  • Inside Cybersecurity & Privacy Law
Copyright © 2022, LexBlog, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Law blog design & platform by LexBlog LexBlog Logo