Case Number: VC065953 Hearing Date: February 07, 2019 Dept: SEC

GARCIA v. PACTIV, LLC

CASE NO.: VC065953

HEARING: 02/07/19

JUDGE: LORI ANN FOURNIER

#4

TENTATIVE ORDER

Defendant PACTIV, LLC’s motion for summary judgment or alternatively summary adjudication is GRANTED. CCP §437c.

Moving Party to give notice.

Both parties’ requests for judicial notice are GRANTED. Cal. Ev. Code §452.

This action for wrongful termination was filed by Plaintiff PONCIANO GARCIA (“Plaintiff”) on November 18, 2016. Plaintiff’s FAC was filed on May 2, 2017. The relevant facts, as alleged, are as follows: “On May 13, 2016, the HR manager called Plaintiff into his office to tell him, ‘you are being released from his duties, Plaintiff asked why, ‘because Plaintiff asked the ex-employee Mary, ‘if she was straight’ he also stated that’ he found more witnesses that were present when Plaintiff asked ‘is she was straight.’ Plaintiff replied to him where are the other witnesses you found at because there were only 3 employees, HR manager, Mary and Plaintiff. Manager remained silent and relied that he was forced to make this decision. [¶] On that day the HR made Plaintiff aware of the Complaint. Plaintiff went into work as usual, he was then called in to the HR office and was told that Maria was accusing Plaintiff of Sexual harassment. Plaintiff answered to the questions to the HR manager after he was suspended pending the investigation. [¶] The HR manager questioned Plaintiff during their meeting. Plaintiff made some comments that the manager chose to never to write about it in his investigation report. The lead-man told Plaintiff that Mary insinuated herself to him 3 times. HR ignored plaintiff comments and didn’t write facts about it in his report. HE asked Plaintiff to sign a questionnaire and told him that he couldn’t give Plaintiff a copy due to the investigation. He refused to do so and told Plaintiff that by him signing Plaintiff was being cooperative in good faith. For this reason, the HR manager chose which case he wanted to pursue and which ones he didn’t.” (FAC ¶¶10-12.) “Plaintiff alleges that he was discharged without cause. Plaintiff was employed by defendant for 6 years, consistently received excellent performance evaluations and merit raises, was assured on numerous occasions that he would not be terminated arbitrarily, and relied on the provisions of the personnel manual regarding the causes for which employees could be discharged, to conclude that plaintiff and defendant had entered into an implied contract that plaintiff would not be discharged unless there was good cause to do so.” (FAC ¶16.)

Plaintiff alleges causes of action for breach of implied contract and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.

Defendant’s separate statement includes the following: Plaintiff began his employment in 2010. Plaintiff initially worked as a temporary employee, but was eventually promoted to the position of Second Shift Production Supervisor, in which he was responsible for supervising between 20 to 40 employees. When Plaintiff was hired, he did not receive a written employment agreement, but was provided with Pactiv’s handbook, which stated that Plaintiff’s employment was “at-will” and that he could be “terminated at any time, with or without cause, with or without notice, at the option of either [himself] or the Company.” (SSMF No. 9.) The at-will relationship could only be altered by a written document signed by the Vice President or Chief Human Resources Officer. No written document was executed altering the at-will relationship. (See SSMF Nos. 1-12.)

First Cause of Action – Breach of Implied Contract

Defendant moves for summary judgment arguing that the employment relationship was at-will.

At-will employment may be terminated “at any time without cause.” (Guz v. Bechtel Nat. Ins. (2000) 24 Cal.4th 317, 335.) To overcome the at-will presumption, there must be an explicit agreement or conduct by the parties demonstrating “their actual mutual intent to create such enforceable limitations” on the at-will relationship. (Id. at 336.) Defendant’s evidence demonstrates that Defendant’s handbook provided that the employment relationship was at-will and that Plaintiff could be terminated at any time without cause. Further, the at-will relationship could only be altered by a written document executed by Defendant’s Vice President or Chief Human Resources Officer—yet no such document was executed. Defendant’s evidence is sufficient to demonstrate that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The burden shifts to Plaintiff to demonstrate the existence of a triable issue of material fact. (Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 849.)

“To raise a triable issue of material fact and defeat an employer’s motion for summary judgment based on the presumption of at-will employment, a plaintiff must produce evidence of an agreement that he or she could not be discharged without good cause.” (Eisenberg v. Alameda Newspapers, Inc. (1999) 74 Cal.App.4th 1359, 1387.) Plaintiff’s evidence fails to show that there was any policy or agreement in effect limiting Defendant’s ability to terminate him. As a result, Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate a triable issue of material fact as to the first cause of action.

Second Cause of Action – Breach of Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing

As indicated above, Defendant’s evidence establishes that the employment relationship was at-will. Therefore, the covenant of good faith and fair dealing cannot be utilized to create a limitation on Defendant’s right to terminate Plaintiff even if the employer terminated the employee in “bad faith” or “without probable cause.” (Guz, supra, 24 Cal.4th at 350-351.) In Opposition, Plaintiff argues that the existence of an implied contract raises a factual determination inappropriately resolved at this stage in the litigation. However, Plaintiff’s showing on this point is insufficient, and Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate a triable issue of material fact on the second cause of action.