Tag: section 970 claim

California Court of Appeals Rules Employees May Sue Employers for Misrepresenting Job Duties A new decision by a California Court of Appeal has found that an employee who relocates in order to accept a position from an employer may have the ability to sue if the description of the kind or character of the position proves to be misleading. This decision demonstrates the importance of accurate descriptions of advertised positions as well as in the written employment offer. In this case, the plaintiff alleges that in interviewing for a position with an employer, he was told that the company needed an experienced project manager to help it expand and to manage teams of project managers throughout the San Francisco area as the company intended to aggressively expand. The plaintiff accepted this explanation of the position and moved from Washington to California; however, five months after this, the employer notified the plaintiff that his position was terminated and that it would instead be moved to its office in Bulgaria. The plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the employer, alleging that the length of time that the job would last had been misrepresented. However, the trial court granted a motion of summary judgment in favor of the employer, finding that the employer had not made any misrepresentation concerning the length of the position. The plaintiff appealed, arguing that though the length of time had not been misrepresented, the form of the job had been. The court of appeals found that based upon the facts, a reasonable jury could find that the employer had never intended to employ an individual to a position as a lead project manager and instead had simply wished to employ a consultant to devise a plan to enhance the company's operations. Under California Labor Code section 970, employers are forbidden from knowingly inducing an employee to relocate in order to accept employment under false representations of the existence, character, type, or duration of work. Though at-will employment removes justifiable reliance on time of employment as a factor, it does not remove representation of the position itself. As a result, at-will employment is not able to be cited to defend against mischaracterization of the title, duties, structure, compensation, hours, or the terms and conditions of employment. Based on these findings, the court of appeals chose to reverse the trial court's ruling of summary judgment. Employer Takeaways Employers can reduce the likelihood that an employee will file a section 970 claim by carefully considering their need for employees before offering an applicant a job in writing that includes specific details about job duties and terms and conditions of employment. Avoid situations like this by staying updated with fair chance hiring compliance. Read our free guide Adverse Action Notice Protocols in Compliance With FCRA to learn more.

Tag: section 970 claim

California Court of Appeals Rules Employees May Sue Employers for Misrepresenting Job Duties

Our Process

Our Platform

Screenings

For Your Industry

For Your Role

Webinar

Resources Library

Logins

E-Book

Services

Industry

Resources

Our Company