Schweiger v. Superior Court, 476 P.2d 97 (1970)

Citation: Schweiger v. Superior Court, 476 P.2d 97 (1970)
Parent Document: Schweiger v. Superior Court, 476 P.2d 97 (1970)
Jurisdiction: California (state)
Effective Date: 1970-11-10
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2610738/schweiger-v-superior-court/ ↗

Full Text

1,023 chars

In the earlier case of Petermann v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters (1959) 174 Cal.App.2d 184 [344 P.2d 25], an employee was discharged after he refused to testify falsely before an Assembly committee, and the Court of Appeal reversed a judgment for the employer in the employee’s damage action. “It would be obnoxious to the interests of the state and contrary to public policy and sound morality to allow an employer to discharge any employee, whether the employment be for a designated or unspecified duration, on the ground that the employee declined to commit perjury, an act specifically enjoined by statute. . . . [I]n order to more fully effectuate the state’s declared policy against perjury, *516the civil law, too, must deny the employer his generally unlimited right to discharge an employee whose employment is for an unspecified duration, when the reason for the dismissal is the employee’s refusal to commit perjury.” (Id. at pp. 188-189; see also United States v. Bruce (5th Cir. 1965) 353 F.2d 474.)

Other Sections in This Document (98)

Full Text