California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from Turner v. Anheuser-Busch, Inc., 32 Cal.Rptr.2d 223, 7 Cal.4th 1238, 876 P.2d 1022 (Cal. 1994):
The essential elements of a claim for constructive discharge in violation of public policy are, as I have previously observed, the following: (1) working conditions so intolerable or aggravated that a reasonable person in the employee's position would have felt compelled to resign; (2) circumstances sufficient to establish the employer's responsibility for the intolerable conditions, and (3) circumstances showing that the discharge violated public policy. (Brady v. Elixir Industries, supra, 196 Cal.App.3d 1299, 1306, 242 Cal.Rptr. 324.) The majority concludes that the state of the evidence relating to the first element--intolerable working conditions--warrants summary judgment for defendant ABI. I disagree. Although I would not characterize the evidence of intolerable conditions as "overwhelming," I am convinced it was sufficient to establish a triable issue of fact.
By itself, a single adverse performance review does not constitute intolerable working conditions, even when the low evaluation is unjustified. But the record here, viewed in the light most favorable to the party opposing summary judgment (Molko v. Holy Spirit Assn. (1988) 46 Cal.3d 1092, 1107, 252 Cal.Rptr. 122, 762 P.2d 46), shows considerably more.
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.