Hunter

We granted review in this case to determine whether Foley v. Interactive Data Corp. (1988) 47 Cal.3d 654 [ 254 Cal. Rptr. 211 , 765 P.2d 373 ] ( Foley ) precludes recovery of tort damages for fraud and deceit predicated on a misrepresentation made to effect termination of employment. Foley made clear that the employment relationship is "fundamentally contractual," and that — terminations in violation of public policy aside — contract damages are the appropriate remedy for wrongful termination. ( Foley, supra, 47 Cal.3d at pp. 665, 696, 699.) We have continuously adhered to that view. (E.g., Gantt v. Sentry Insurance (1992) 1 Cal.4th 1083, 1086, fn. 1 [ 4 Cal. Rptr.2d 874 , 824 P.2d 680 ]; Shoemaker v. Myers (1990) 52 Cal.3d 1, 24 [ 276 Cal. Rptr. 303 , 801 P.2d 1054 , A.L.R.4th 1720]; Screen Extras Guild, Inc. v. Superior Court (1990) 51 Cal.3d 1017, 1027 [ 275 Cal. Rptr. 395 , 800 P.2d 873 ]; Newman v. Emerson Radio Corp. (1989) 48 Cal.3d 973 [ 258 Cal. Rptr. 592 , 772 P.2d 1059 ].) Analyzing the circumstances of this case in light of Foley and of the traditional elements of fraud, we conclude that wrongful termination of employment ordinarily does not give…

We granted review in this case to determine whether Foley v. Interactive Data Corp. (1988) 47 Cal.Sd 654 [ 254 Cal.Rptr. 211 , 765 P.2d 373 ] (Foley) precludes recovery of tort damages for fraud and deceit predicated on a misrepresentation made to effect termination of employment. Foley made clear that the employment relationship is “fundamentally contractual,” and that—terminations in violation of public policy aside—contract damages are the appropriate remedy for wrongful termination. ( Foley, supra, 47 Cal.3d at pp. 665, 696, 699.) We have continuously adhered to that view. (E.g., Gantt v. Sentry Insurance (1992) 1 Cal.4th 1083, 1086, fn. 1 [ 4 Cal.Rptr.2d 874 , 824 P.2d 680 ]; Shoemaker v. Myers (1990) 52 Cal.3d 1, 24 [ 276 Cal.Rptr. 303 , 801 P.2d 1054 , A.L.R.4th 1720]; Screen Extras Guild, Inc. v. Superior Court (1990) 51 Cal.3d 1017, 1027 [ 275 Cal.Rptr. 395 , 800 P.2d 873 ]; Newman v. Emerson Radio Corp. (1989) 48 Cal.3d 973 [ 258 Cal.Rptr. 592 , 772 P.2d 1059 ].) Analyzing the circumstances of this case in light of Foley and of the traditional elements of fraud, we conclude that wrongful termination of employment ordinarily does not give rise to a cause of…

Plaintiff Charles Hunter worked as a welder for defendant Up-Right, Inc., from January 1973 until September 1987. He was considered an excellent employee. On September 10, 1987, Hunter’s supervisor induced him to resign by falsely telling him that his position was being eliminated because of a corporate reorganization. Six months later, Hunter learned of the fraud. He then brought this action. The jury awarded Hunter damages of $38,013 for breach of contract and $120,000 for the fraud.

The issue is whether an employee may recover tort damages for fraud perpetrated by the employer for the purpose of concealing from the employee his or her rights under the employment contract. The majority, relying primarily on this court’s decision in Foley v. Interactive Data Corp. (1988) 47 Cal.3d 654 [ 254 Cal.Rptr. 211 , 765 P.2d 373 ] (Foley), holds that the employee’s recovery is limited to contract damages. According to the majority, fraud is indistinguishable from a constructive wrongful termination because the employer “simply employed a falsehood to do what it otherwise could have accomplished directly,” that is, terminated employment. (Maj. opn., ante, at p. 1184.) In any event, the…