Comments on: The News-Press slings mud on Earth Day

By: Balbustress

Balbustress — Sun, 25 Jan 2009 15:05:52 +0000

Oooh, I just love seeing those poor balls getting kicked

By: christine

christine — Mon, 30 Apr 2007 18:20:57 +0000

See you all Wednesday 5/2 at 8:45 am- at the Courthouse arch on Anacapa- bring your Independent cover to raise in the air!!

By: Mas Gaviota

Mas Gaviota — Fri, 27 Apr 2007 16:21:18 +0000

Munny,
The fact is that there are exceptions to at will employment. My case was a few years ago, so possibly the case law has changed. Tha tdoes not change the fact that there are protections and exemptions to the idea that an employer can simply fire anyone at any time. My point of refering to the Nevada case should have been that according to the UnitedStates Bureau of Labor Statistics that eighteen states recognise the three exemptions the at will employment. Yes the time of employment does matter in some cases when bonuses and commisions are involved. Your attack on a minor point of one of my posts shows how empty your ideas are.

By: William Munny

William Munny — Fri, 27 Apr 2007 15:42:12 +0000

I’ll be honest Mas…..I simply know more than you on this topic. First, Lawerence is no longer good case law (read up on Foley and Guz (24 Cal.4th 317), two well cited cases). Second, Nevada case law has absolutely zero applicability to California. Third, at the risk of repeating myself, there is no “generally accepted time from for an employee to be considered a long term employee.” (There is a reason he didn’t charge you for that “information.”).

You stated, “Finally, based on case Law in California, after seven years of employment, an employee is presumed to be a long term employee and can only be fired for cause.” That statement is simply not true and I called you on it. You have now tried to backpeddle and claim “exceptions” to the California law. However, those exceptions don’t arise merely because somebody is employed beyond 7 years and they don’t automatically create a “for cause” termination status. Simply put, Labor Code section 2922 establishes a presumption of at-will employment if the parties have made no express or or written agreement specifying the length of employment or the grounds for termination.

Just because you are able to post it on a blog doesn’t make your statements fact.

By: Mas Gaviota

Mas Gaviota — Thu, 26 Apr 2007 21:54:42 +0000

Ok Munny here it is,
I, unlike you, can back up my statements with fact. Since you offer only opinions I cannot comment on your usual unfounded statements. There are three areas of exception to at will employment in the State of California: public policy exception, Implied contract exception, and covenant of
good faith and fair dealing exception. My case was based on the last example, the covenant of good faith and fair dealing exception. Here are two cases for you to read up on: Lawerence M. Cleary v. American Airlines, Inc., Kmart Corporation v.Ponsock (a Nevada case), . My source for this information is a publication from the U.S. government:
http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2001/01/art1full.pdf
According to my lawyer the seven year time period is a generally accepted time frame for an employee to be considered a long term employee. He did not even charge me for that information. My case, for you information, was taken on contingency basis so I paid nothing, but thank you for the snide remarks. If you think that “at will employment” has no legal limits you are a fool. You probably also think that when you park your car in a parking lot that that little ticket you receive releases the lot owner of any liability. WRONG, just like your last post.