Romano v. Rockwell International, Inc.

14 Cal. 4th 479 (Cal. 1996) · Supreme Court of California · December 16, 1996

Summary

The California Supreme Court considers when statutes of limitations begin to run in a wrongful-termination action involving contract claims, tort claims, and claims under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act. The court holds that the limitations periods generally begin upon the employee’s actual termination rather than upon earlier notice that termination will occur. The court affirms the Court of Appeal’s reversal of summary judgment for the employer.

Holdings

  1. Romano's implied-contract and implied-covenant claims accrued when his employment was actually terminated, not when Rockwell notified him that termination was planned. Even if the notice constituted an anticipatory repudiation, Romano could elect to disregard it and await actual performance or breach.
  2. For FEHA claims alleging discriminatory or retaliatory discharge, the limitations period under Government Code section 12960 begins on the date of actual termination, not the date the employer communicates an intention to terminate the employee.
  3. A Tameny wrongful-termination claim accrues when the employee is actually dismissed, because dismissal on an improper ground is the legally cognizable breach of the employer's duty.
  4. Summary judgment for Rockwell was improper because the claims were timely when measured from Romano's actual termination; the Court of Appeal correctly reversed the trial court.

Questions Presented

  1. When did Romano's contract claims for breach of an implied employment contract and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing accrue for statute-of-limitations purposes?
  2. When did Romano's FEHA retaliation and age-discrimination claims accrue under Government Code section 12960?
  3. When did Romano's tort claim for wrongful termination in violation of public policy accrue?
  4. Whether summary judgment was proper on the ground that the claims accrued when Rockwell notified Romano of the planned termination rather than when his employment actually ended.

Disposition

affirmed

Cases Cited (41)

  • Mann v. Cracchiolo, 38 Cal. 3d 18, 35 (1985)(followed)
  • Villa v. McFerren, 35 Cal. App. 4th 733, 741 (1995)(followed)
  • Jambazian v. Borden, 25 Cal. App. 4th 836, 844 (1994)(followed)
  • Torres v. Reardon, 3 Cal. App. 4th 831, 836 (1992)(followed)
  • Spann v. Irwin Memorial Blood Centers, 34 Cal. App. 4th 644, 649 (1995)(followed)
  • Spear v. California State Automobile Association, 2 Cal. 4th 1035, 1040, 1042 (1992)(followed)
  • Jolly v. Eli Lilly & Co., 44 Cal. 3d 1103, 1111-1112 (1988)(followed)
  • Davies v. Krasna, 14 Cal. 3d 502, 512-513 (1975)(followed)
  • Adams v. Paul, 11 Cal. 4th 583, 592 (1995)(followed)
  • Taylor v. Johnston, 15 Cal. 3d 130, 137 (1975)(followed)

Showing top 10 of 41.

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…