5/25    Does anybody in CA have experience with a wrongful termination
        suit?  Somebody I know who was working with a bank for 26 years
        was sort of fired on the spot and even though this is an "at will"
        work state, it seems like she has a claim.  She has won a lot
        of awards but was fired after making a mistake but it seems like
        people are entited to a few mistakes and they cant be used as an
        excuse to fire somebody a single manager doesnt like.  Thanks.
        \_ Go seek an attorney.
        \_ Not answering your question, but:
           Doesn't "at will" mean you that you can quit for any reason, just
           like you can be fired for any reason (for firing, as long as it
           isn't related to race/gender/age/sexual orientation as long as you
           can prove it).
           E.g., you can be fired because you made a mistake, or because you
           refuse to remove a Kerry bumper sticker from your car, which you
           park on the company lot.
           \_ "At will" means you can get fired for legal reasons.  So it's
              ok to fire someone for sporting a Kerry bumper sticker but not
              ok for refusing to suck your dick.
              \_ At will also means that there doesn't have to be a reason.
                 The bar is really high in establishing grounds for a wrongful
                 termination suit.
        \_ it is pretty unlikely she has a claim unless she thinks she was
           fired for whistleblowing or because she was black or whatever.  -tom
            \_ (fuck off)
           \- I think there are probably different presumptions in the case
              of an employee of a quarter century standing [think "jury trial"
              and it will probably be expensive to respond to age discrim type
              claims]. I'm not sure "at will" entitles the employer to not be
              consistent ... if you fire one person for sneezing on the
              salad bar but you dont fire the 20 other people, that looks bad.
              Anyway, I'm just speculating. Labor law involves detail and not
              just broad principles.
        \_ If she is over 40, she is in a protected class and her chances
           of a win or settlement are much higher.
        \_ it is pretty unlikely she has a claim unless she thinks she was
           fired for whistleblowing or because she was black or whatever.  -tom
           \- dont you think the fact pattern would have included either of
              these elements had they been relevant? i think what the OP
              is really looking for is "what are the grounds of the rebuttable
              presumption of at will employment in CA" ... not these canards
              about dick sucking and whistleblowing. i have to say i found the
              kerry bumper sticker case pretty shocking ... or course that
              wasnt an USSC decision ...
              \_ that's amusing, getting lectured by the master of irrelevancy
                 for my answer not being relevant enough.  -tom
                 \- presumably you are trying to offer a relevant answer
                    rather than a random "interesting" factoid.
           \_ Ah!  You used the B word!
        \_ The short answer is that at-will agreements are a bunch of
           hooey (in CA). Seek a lawyer and thou shall see the light.
           \_ The short answer is that you don't have a case unless you have
              persuasive evidence.  Seek a lawyer and thou shalt see the light.