The recent case of Hern v. Pacific Gas & Electric Company provides crucial clarity on when employees can pursue tort claims alongside wrongful termination cases. This decision offers important guidance for both employers and employees in California regarding the intersection of defamation claims and employment termination.
Case Background
Todd Hearn, a former PG&E lineman, sued his employer for retaliation and defamation following his termination in 2019. The case stemmed from an investigation into overtime claims at PG&E's Napa facility, which led to Hearn's suspension and eventual termination. While the jury rejected Hearn's retaliation claim, they initially found PG&E liable for defamation and awarded over $2 million in damages.
The Key Legal Issue
The central question in this case was whether an employee can maintain a separate tort claim (in this case, defamation) when it arises from the same conduct that led to their termination and seeks damages solely related to loss of employment.
The Court's Analysis
The appellate court's decision relied heavily on three foundational California Supreme Court cases: Foley v. Interactive Data Corp., Hunter v. Up-Right, Inc., and Lazar v. Superior Court. Together, these cases establish important parameters for tort claims in employment termination contexts.
The court identified two critical requirements for employees seeking tort damages from former employers:
The tort claim must be based on conduct separate from that which led to the termination
The damages sought cannot be exclusively tied to the termination itself
Why Hearn's Defamation Claim Failed
The court ultimately reversed the defamation verdict because:
The defamatory statements (contained in the Mar report) were generated within the scope of Hearn's disciplinary proceedings
The report was essentially the vehicle through which PG&E implemented Hearn's termination
Hearn's damages were solely related to his loss of employment, with no separate claims for reputational harm or other damages
Important Takeaways for California Employers and Employees
This case provides several crucial lessons:
Separate Conduct Required: To maintain a viable tort claim alongside a wrongful termination case, the tort must arise from conduct distinct from the termination itself.
Damages Must Be Distinguished: Employees seeking tort damages must demonstrate harm beyond just the loss of employment.
Documentation Matters: The way companies document and implement termination decisions can impact their exposure to separate tort claims.
Strategic Considerations: Both employers and employees need to carefully consider how termination-related documents are created and used, as they may affect the viability of separate tort claims.
Practical Implications
For employers, this decision provides some protection against employees attempting to repackage wrongful termination claims as separate tort actions. However, employers should still exercise caution in how they document and communicate termination decisions.
For employees, the case emphasizes the importance of identifying and pursuing damages separate from mere loss of employment when bringing tort claims alongside wrongful termination cases. This might include specific reputational harm, emotional distress, or other damages not directly tied to the termination itself.
Conclusion
The Hern decision provides valuable clarity on the intersection of tort claims and wrongful termination cases in California. It reinforces the principle that while employees can generally pursue tort claims against their employers, such claims must be truly separate from the termination itself and seek distinct damages to be viable.
For more information about how this decision might affect your employment situation or company policies, please contact the Law Office of Jack Kakoian for a consultation
Comentarios