California Court of Appeal

In plaintiff's suit against his former employers raising numerous causes of action, claiming that he was induced to come to the United States by the defendants who, within just a few months of his arrival from his home country of India, had his promised salary reduced and then pressured him to resign, judgment of the trial court in favor of plaintiff is affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded where: 1) plaintiff has shown no prejudicial error in either the limiting instruction or the denial of his request for leave to amend the complaint; 2) the refusal of defendants' proposed jury instruction regarding the salary reduction was error; 3) defendants are entitled to judgment in their favor on the count for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing; 4) the special verdict findings regarding alleged misrepresentations and promises made to plaintiff are inconsistent, and such inconsistency also extends to the finding of malice, oppression, or fraud; 5) defendants have shown no error in the award of damages for unpaid wages; 6) the award of damages for intentional infliction of emotional distress is based on injuries suffered in the course and scope of employment, for which workers' compensation provides the exclusive remedy; and 7) however, the workers' compensation exclusivity rule does not preclude this entire action.

Appellate Information

• Decided 07/01/2010
• Published 07/01/2010

Judges

• CROSKEY, J.

Court

• California Court of Appeal

Counsel

• For Appellant:
  
• Krishna R. Malhotra, Rita Gunasekaran