Terminating an Employee Arrested for Off-Duty Conduct Could Run Afoul of California Law
Time 3 Minute Read

In a time when workplace violence seems to be on the rise, many companies have adopted a strict no tolerance policy even for conduct outside the workplace.  In California, however, employers need to be cognizant of the protections afforded individuals that may make such terminations riskier than the company may expect.  One employer got just such a reminder last week when a California jury returned an $18M verdict against it for terminating an employee after he was arrested for threatening his girlfriend outside of the workplace.

In Fall 2014, Michael Tilkey, a 30-year employee of a large insurance company, was arrested following a domestic dispute.  Police were dispatched after Tilkey’s ex-girlfriend called in claiming Tilkey had been banging forcefully on her door after she locked him out.  Tilkey was subsequently arrested on two counts of domestic violence.  Tilkey did not inform his employer of his arrest. Ultimately, the charges were dismissed.

The employer learned of Tilkey’s prior arrest in late 2015 after intercepting an email sent to Tilkey’s corporate email account from his ex-girlfriend discussing their domestic dispute.  The employer initiated a human resources investigation to determine whether Tilkey had violated any company policies in conjunction with his 2014 arrest.  Upon questioning, Tilkey admitted the details of his arrest to the employer’s HR investigator, explained the circumstances, and informed him that all charges were dropped.

According to Tilkey, the investigator found no violation of company policy relating to Tilkey’s arrest and had no plans to take further action.  One month later, however, Tilkey’s ex-girlfriend sent an email to the employer’s CEO accusing Tilkey of threatening her during the 2014 domestic dispute and asking the company to conduct a further investigation into the incident.

Shortly thereafter, the employer terminated Tilkey’s employment.  When asked for the reason(s) behind his firing, the employer told Tilkey the company had a “strict policy” allowing for the immediate firing of employees “who engage in threats or acts of physical harm or violence.”  According to the employer, “threatening anyone” – including third parties unaffiliated with the company – was against company policy.

Tilkey subsequently sued for wrongful termination, claiming his former employer violated Cal. Labor Code 432.7 by terminating him on the basis of a prior arrest not resulting in a conviction.  On May 14, 2018, the jury returned a verdict in Tilkey’s favor, finding Tilkey’s prior arrest was a substantial motivating reason for his discharge. The jury awarded Tilkey $2.6 million in actual damages and an additional $16 Million in punitive damages. The employer has since indicated it intends to appeal the verdict and jury award.

While terminating an employee for off-duty conduct may generally fit within the at-will doctrine, this case is a cautionary reminder that an employer should consider whether there are any statutory or other exceptions under California law that may weigh against a termination decision before pulling the trigger.

  • Partner

    Emily co-chairs the firm’s labor and employment group and has a national practice focusing on complex employment and wage and hour litigation and advice. Emily is an accomplished trial lawyer who defends employers in complex ...

You May Also Be Interested In

Time 2 Minute Read

A new law addressing workplace violence restraining orders, which expands employers ability to obtain temporary restraining orders in non-violent situations of harassment, was signed into law on September 30, 2023, became effective on January 1, 2025.

Time 3 Minute Read

On January 20, 2025, Donald J. Trump was sworn in as the 47th President of the United States. Fulfilling one of his major campaign promises, he issued a series of executive orders on his first day in office. Two of these orders represent a significant shift regarding gender and diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives.

Time 4 Minute Read

“Ban-the-Box” legislation has seen steady growth throughout the country for more than two decades.  Currently, there is no federal legislation on the topic for private employers but a good number of states have limited their ability to inquire about or make decisions based on a prospective employee’s criminal background history.

Time 5 Minute Read

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) voted on April 23 to approve a final rule banning most non-compete agreements between employers and their workers (Final Rule). The Final Rule is scheduled to go into effect 120 days after it is published in the Federal Register, which will likely occur in the next few weeks, though legal challenges may delay the Final Rule’s effective date and FTC enforcement actions.

Search

Subscribe Arrow

Recent Posts

Categories

Tags

Authors

Archives

Jump to Page