In California, along with numerous other states, an engagement or employment contract of indefinite time period can be signed and is mostly considered to be at the will of either party involved. However, noteworthy is the fact that the “at will” association can be explicitly or implicitly modified by the employer. As an example, say, if the employer initially publishes some kind of handbooks or pamphlets or any other publications targeted at employees, which advocates that no employees will be dismissed or disciplined unless he or she is in accordance with certain dealings. In such instances the employee might find the grounds tostress that he or she was unjustly relegated or terminated if the company was somehow failing to follow its own set out conditions and processes of demoting or firing the employees. In the same way, if any employer is responsible for oral guarantees of continual employment the regulations mentioned above again apply to the employer.
In both the cases mentioned above, along with other numerous cases, the “at will” relationship on the part of the employer might just be modified and might require the employer to now establish and disclose a “prominent cause” prior to proceeding with the termination or demotion of an employee. In the official legal sense the phrase “good cause “is clearly elaborated in the California state law as to mean, impartial and authentic reasons, delimited by moral faith on the part of the proprietor, that are not inconsequential, random, or even unpredictable, disparate to business needs or goals, or pre-textual, a coherent assumption, in short, reinforced by considerable evidence congregated through a passable inquiry that comprises notice of the demanded delinquency and a chance for the worker to respond.
Additionally the Californian legal system has also clearly established that an employer’s wide-ranging right to dismiss an employee “at-will” is subject to substantial limits implemented by and under the banner of public policy. The legal system believes this to be very appropriate since they believe that even a virtual threat of expulsion could be used by the employer to pressurize the employees into doing unlawful acts like concealing wrongdoing, committing crimes, or committing other acts that can in one way or the other be damaging to the public weal. Therefore, unless the operative/employee has a tangible or even oblique indenture with the employer which permits for expulsion only for cause or some other quantified reasons, the employer does not possess the ability to dismiss an employee. However, given the complex nature of these California employment law termination laws, sometimes it takes a capable attorney to determine whether the motives for termination are legal or illegal.