Jersey

Jersey v. John Muir Medical Center

Good Law
118 Cal. Rptr. 2d 807·2002 Cal. App. LEXIS 3971·2002 Daily Journal DAR 4119·97 Cal. App. 4th 814·18 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 888
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaApril 16, 2002A093521California6,862 words

Opinion

Opinion

Pollak, J.

The principal question presented by this appeal is whether a hospital that terminates an at-will employee for bringing a personal injury action against a former patient who had assaulted the employee during the course of her employment violates a fundamental public policy that supports a so-called Tameny claim. The trial court concluded that it did not and granted summary judgment to the defendant hospital. We agree with this conclusion and affirm. However, we reverse an award of attorney fees made to the defendant under a related Fair Employment and Housing Act cause of action for sex discrimination.

Statement of Facts

Plaintiff was employed by the defendant medical center in various nursing assistant and technician positions for approximately seven years. The employee handbook that she received, and other documents that she signed in connection with her employment, stated explicitly that her employment was at will, but said nothing about suing or refraining from suing patients of the hospital. In August of 1997, plaintiff was assaulted by a patient in the rehabilitation unit who was suffering from head trauma. Plaintiff was injured and went on workers’ compensation…

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.