Barbee

Barbee v. Household Automotive Finance Corp.

Good Law
113 Cal. App. 4th 525·2003 Cal. App. LEXIS 1719·2003 Daily Journal DAR 12517·6 Cal. Rptr. 3d 406·20 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 1143
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaNovember 20, 2003D040421California3,396 words

Opinion

Opinion

Aaron, J.

I.

INTRODUCTION

Appellant Robert Barbee appeals from a summary judgment order entered in favor of defendant Household Automotive Finance Corporation (HAFC). Barbee contends the trial court erred in concluding that HAFC’s termination of his employment for dating a subordinate neither invaded his right to privacy guaranteed by article I, section 1 of the California Constitution nor violated the public policy expressed in Labor Code section 96, subdivision (k). We affirm the judgment.

II.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Barbee was the national sales manager for HAFC and was responsible for leading HAFC’s entire sales force. In October 2000, Barbee began dating Melanie Tomita, a member of HAFC’s sales force. The chief executive officer of HAFC, John Vella, became aware of rumors that Barbee was dating someone within the sales force. During December 2000, Vella informed Barbee that “intercompany dating was a bad idea.”

HAFC has a conflict of interest policy that provides in relevant part: “Situations of relationships between employees may . . . cause a conflict of interest. If a consensual intimate relationship between a supervisor and any employee within that…

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.