Jameson v. Pacific Gas and Electric Co.
A147515
| Cal. Ct. App. | Nov 1, 2017Background
- Steve Jameson was a PG&E Regional Construction Manager (promoted 2012); in 2013 a subordinate, Paul Nelson, reported a safety issue involving an unbarricaded pipe on a site Jameson managed.
- After the report, Nelson was reassigned away from Jameson’s sites; Nelson complained of retaliation to PG&E executives, prompting an internal investigation.
- PG&E retained outside investigator/employment attorney Jennie Lee, who interviewed ten witnesses, reviewed records, and issued a report concluding Jameson orchestrated complaints to have Nelson removed in retaliation for reporting the safety issue.
- PG&E management accepted Lee’s findings and terminated Jameson for retaliatory misconduct that would chill safety reporting.
- Jameson sued for wrongful termination and breach of the implied-in-fact employment contract (and breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing); PG&E moved for summary judgment arguing at-will status and, alternatively, that it had good cause to fire him.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for PG&E (ruling Jameson failed to raise a triable issue of an implied contract); the Court of Appeal affirmed on the alternative ground that PG&E had good cause to terminate.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Existence of an implied contract barring termination without good cause | Jameson argued PG&E’s policies, reliance on them, and long service created such an implied-in-fact contract | PG&E argued Jameson was at-will and no implied contract existed | Court did not decide the implied-contract issue; affirmed on alternative ground (good cause) |
| Whether PG&E had "good cause" to terminate under Cotran standard | Jameson argued Lee’s investigation was biased/inadequate and management relied unreasonably on it; expert opined procedural flaws | PG&E argued it conducted a prompt, multi-witness investigation whose conclusions management reasonably relied upon in good faith | Court held PG&E met Cotran: investigation and employer belief were reasonable as a matter of law; no triable issue of bad faith |
| Adequacy/fairness of the investigation | Jameson claimed failures to interview certain witnesses, limited follow-up, and other procedural defects created triable issues | PG&E showed Lee interviewed ten witnesses, explained why others were unnecessary, produced a detailed report, and allowed Jameson to be interviewed | Court held the investigation was inherently fair under Cotran and King; after‑the‑fact expert criticism did not create a triable issue |
| Investigator bias (Lee’s former/ongoing ties to PG&E) | Jameson argued Lee’s prior work for PG&E and current retention created bias | PG&E noted Lee’s experience, neutral process, and that she had never before found manager-retaliation for safety complaints | Court held those relationships did not give rise to a reasonable inference of bias sufficient to defeat summary judgment |
Key Cases Cited
- Cotran v. Rollins Hudig Hall Intern., Inc., 17 Cal.4th 93 (1998) (sets employer-good-faith standard for terminations following internal investigations)
- King v. United Parcel Service, Inc., 152 Cal.App.4th 426 (2007) (employer’s honest belief after an adequate investigation defeats implied-contract claim where facts admit of one conclusion)
- Serri v. Santa Clara University, 226 Cal.App.4th 830 (2014) (discusses Cotran elements and summary judgment application)
- Horn v. Cushman & Wakefield Western, Inc., 72 Cal.App.4th 798 (1999) (summary judgment standards on review)
- Lujan v. California School of Culinary Arts, 112 Cal.App.4th 16 (2003) (appellate court may affirm on any correct legal theory addressed below)
- Zak v. State Farm Mut. Liab. Ins. Co., 232 Cal.App.2d 500 (1965) (court will not base affirmance on factual issues not raised in trial court)