See, Jameson v. Pacific Gas and Electric Company, California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, October 5, 2017, Case A147515
In relevant part, plaintiff employee claimed that PG&E fired him in breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, that he would not be fired for other than good cause, and in retaliation. PG&E countered that it was an at-will employment, and that in the alternative that PG&E had good cause and that its investigation established good case. Plaintiff employee further claimed that PG&E’s investigation was inadequate and that the investigator, who was an attorney, failed to interview all of the identified witnesses or sufficiently consider plaintiff employee’s arguments and evidence. See below clip from the court’s opinion.
Of course, whether or not the investigation was sufficient and appropriately performed by a competent and qualified person will vary and depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and investigation.
David Tate, Esq.
With respect to the sufficiency of the investigation, in relevant part, the court held: