PG&E terminated Jameson after his subordinate complained that Jameson retaliated against the subordinate for raising a safety concern. After receiving the complaint, PG&E hired an outside employment lawyer to conduct an investigation which concluded that the complaint had merit. Based on the investigation report, PG&E fired Jameson. Held, summary judgment was properly entered for PG&E. Even if Jameson was not an at-will employee and could be fired only for good cause, the undisputed evidence showed PG&E had good cause. PG&E acted in good faith in deciding to fire Jameson, basing its decision on an investigation that was appropriate under the circumstances and that gave PG&E reasonable grounds for believing that Jameson had engaged in misconduct. Jameson’s expert’s opinion that the investigation could have been conducted in a better manner or been more thorough was not enough to raise a triable issue of fact.
California Court of Appeal, First District, Division Three (Siggins, J.); October 5, 2017; 2017 WL 4973874.