(1994) 7 Cal.4th 1238
Supreme Court of California · No. S029985 · Decided July 25, 1994
01. Facts
James M. Turner worked at Anheuser-Busch, Inc. (ABI), rising to assistant supervisor of route sales in its Riverside wholesale division (7 Cal.4th at p. 1243). Turner claimed ABI forced him to quit after he complained about what he alleged were the company’s illegal practices (id. at p. 1243). Between 1984 and 1987 he received generally “good” performance ratings, but in December 1988 he received a “needs improvement” rating, and at a meeting that day ABI supervisors cited specific incidents of asserted performance deterioration, which Turner denied (id. at pp. 1243–1244). Turner resigned and sued for constructive wrongful discharge in violation of public policy; ABI obtained summary judgment, and the Court of Appeal reinstated the claim (id. at p. 1243).
02. Procedural posture
The Supreme Court granted review to define the elements of constructive wrongful discharge in violation of public policy. Finding no triable issue of fact and no legal foundation for Turner’s claim, it reversed the Court of Appeal and directed entry of summary judgment for ABI (id. at p. 1243).
03. Issue
What an employee must show to establish a constructive discharge — when working conditions are so intolerable that a resignation is treated in law as a termination — and whether Turner’s evidence met that standard.
Holding
To establish a constructive discharge, an employee must prove that the employer either intentionally created or knowingly permitted working conditions so intolerable or aggravated that a reasonable person in the employee’s position would have had no reasonable alternative but to resign; ordinary job dissatisfaction or isolated criticism does not suffice. Turner’s showing fell short, and summary judgment for ABI was proper (id. at p. 1243).
05. Reasoning
The court explained that a constructive discharge is legally equivalent to an actual dismissal, so the same intolerable-conditions standard governs whether the claim sounds in contract or in tort for violation of public policy. The standard is objective — measured by what a reasonable employee would do — and demands conditions far worse than the friction of ordinary workplace disputes or criticism. Turner’s complaints about performance reviews and reassignments, even viewed favorably to him, did not describe aggravated, intolerable conditions, and he produced no evidence linking his resignation to a protected complaint about illegal activity. No reasonable jury could find a constructive discharge on this record, so ABI was entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
Practice Pointer
Turner states the controlling — and demanding — constructive-discharge standard. For plaintiff’s counsel, document conditions that are objectively intolerable and, where possible, continuous, not a single bad review or reassignment, and tie the employer’s knowledge or intent to those conditions. Build the record with contemporaneous complaints, witness accounts, and proof the employer knew of and tolerated (or engineered) the conditions, so the resignation reads as the only reasonable option rather than a voluntary exit.
06. Open questions
Turner defined the threshold for constructive discharge but left to later cases how the doctrine interacts with specific statutory retaliation schemes (such as the FEHA and Labor Code section 1102.5), where adverse-action and causation standards may differ from the common-law constructive-discharge test.
Cite this entry
Turner v. Anheuser-Busch, Inc. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 1238.
“we discern no material issue of fact and no legal foundation for Turner’s case. We therefore reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeal and direct summary judgment in favor of ABI.” — 7 Cal.4th at p. 1243
Source: California Official Reports – [insert durable courts.ca.gov / Official Reports link at verification].