Keenan v. Cox Communications
3:18-cv-00129
S.D. Cal.Jul 22, 2019Background
- Keenan moved from Florida to take a Sales Account Executive job at Cox in San Diego after oral discussions with Cox managers (Park and Martinez) about 20–25 “protected” accounts and commission opportunities. Cox’s written offer stated at-will employment, a $90,000 base, and a six-month guaranteed commission ramp-up; it referenced a commission plan to be provided at start of employment.
- Keenan began work in October 2015, received the 2015 Sales Compensation Plan (including a “decelerator” commission provision) and Cox’s Rules of Engagement (stating Sales Director controls account ownership) shortly thereafter.
- Keenan discovered within months that other sales reps were selling to the purportedly protected accounts and that the commission plan contained terms he had not been told; he informed Martinez early on but no corrective reassignment occurred.
- Keenan repeatedly failed to meet quota after the ramp-up period, was placed on progressive discipline (PIP, written warnings, final warning), and was terminated in May 2017 for poor performance.
- Keenan sued Cox and Martinez (Dec. 2017) asserting: (1) Cal. Lab. Code § 970 (fraudulent inducement to relocate), (2) Cal. Lab. Code § 2751 (written commission agreement), (3) breach of implied-in-fact contract and breach of covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and (4) wrongful termination in violation of public policy (including discrimination). Defendants moved for summary judgment; the court granted it in full.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §970 claim is time-barred (statute of limitations and accrual) | Keenan: three-year statute (fraud) and accrual is disputed; discovery rule delays accrual until fraud discovered | Defendants: one-year statute applies because §972 provides mandatory double-damages (penal) and accrual occurred within months of hire | Court: one-year statute (Cal. Civ. Proc. Code §340) applies; claim accrued by Oct–early 2016 and is time-barred |
| Whether §2751 claim supports private civil relief | Keenan: Cox failed to provide a signed written commission agreement at outset | Cox: statute does not require pre-hire agreement; post-hire plan was provided; section 2752 (private remedy) repealed | Court: monetary remedy now only via PAGA; Keenan did not bring PAGA claim → summary judgment for Cox |
| Breach of implied-in-fact contract / covenant of good faith | Keenan: Martinez’s promises and conduct created an implied agreement inconsistent with at-will offer | Cox: express written at-will offer and compensation documents govern; alleged pre-hire statements cannot create contradictory implied contract | Court: express at-will documents control; no triable issue of implied contract or covenant → summary judgment for Cox |
| Wrongful termination / discrimination (Gov. Code §12940) | Keenan: termination violated public policy underlying §970/§2751 and was discriminatorily motivated (age, sexual orientation, ethnicity) | Cox: termination for legitimate non-discriminatory reason—failure to meet quota; no evidence of pretext or similarly situated comparators | Court: §970/§2751 claims fail (so not predicate for wrongful termination); no evidence of discrimination or pretext → summary judgment for Cox |
Key Cases Cited
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (summary judgment standard)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (summary judgment burdens)
- Aguilera v. Pirelli Armstrong Tire Corp., 223 F.3d 1010 (application of §340 to §970 claims in Ninth Circuit precedent)
- Jolly v. Eli Lilly & Co., 44 Cal.3d 1103 (California discovery rule for accrual)
- Pooshs v. Philip Morris USA, Inc., 51 Cal.4th 788 (California accrual / last-element rule)