Gibson

Gibson v. Aro Corp.

Good Law
1995 Cal. App. LEXIS 216·32 Cal. App. 4th 1628·38 Cal. Rptr. 2d 882·95 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 1834
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMarch 7, 1995B064334California4,098 words

Opinion

Opinion

Woods, J.

I.

Introduction

Defendant appeals from a judgment entered after a verdict in which the jury found that defendant constructively discharged plaintiff and was liable for unlawful age discrimination. Plaintiff appeals from the order granting a partial new trial on the issue of punitive damages. We initially reduced the punitive damages and affirmed the judgment as modified.

The California Supreme Court granted defendant’s petition for review and subsequently transferred the cause to this court with directions to vacate our decision and reconsider the cause in light of Turner v. Anheuser-Busch, Inc. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 1238 [ 32 Cal.Rptr.2d 223 , 876 P.2d 1022 ]. We reverse, as plaintiff cannot prove a constructive discharge as now delineated in Turner in that he failed to notify defendant that he considered his working conditions to be intolerable.

II.

Factual and Procedural Synopsis

A. Summary of Facts.

Richard S. Gibson began working for Aro Corporation in 1965. From 1976 until July 1987, he was the head of Aro’s field sales force in region 61, which covers the 13 western states. Region 61 included California, which is one of the most important states for the sales of…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.