Facts

Bette Ekeya lived and worked in Nebraska. In 2003, she applied for a position as the principal of St. Maria Goretti Academy in California. Ekeya, who is in her 40s, was interviewed by the school board and sent a letter offering her the position for the 2003-2004 school year. Ekeya accepted the position, thinking it would be for an 11 month period. Thereafter, she moved to California and was presented with her employment agreement. A provision in the agreement stated that the position she had accepted was at-will. Ekeya signed the agreement in August of 2003. In December, Bill Tullius, the president of the school board, fired Ekeya for cause. Ekeya filed a lawsuit against Tullius and St. Maria, alleging wrongful termination, violation of the California Labor Code, breach of contract, breach of the covenant of good faith, promissory fraud and negligent infliction of emotional distress.

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS:
The plaintiff claimed that the contract between the parties was for a term of employment evidenced by the offer letter that was sent to her by the defendants. The plaintiff claimed that the defendants attempted to fill the position through misrepresentation when they presented the plaintiff with a subsequent employment agreement that attempted to nullify the previous agreement.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS:
The defendants claimed that the employment agreement signed by the plaintiff was the binding employment agreement. The defendants also challenged the claim that they procured the plaintiff's employment by misrepresentation. They contended that the plaintiff had been sent the employee policy handbook which clearly stated that its employees were at-will, subject to termination. The plaintiff was subsequently fired because she failed to comply with the board's requests and also committed errors at work. In addition, following her termination, in an effort to fund a trip to her country of origin, the plaintiff inappropriately sought donations from students' parents. The defense challenged the extent of the plaintiff's damages, specifically her moving expenses which the defense claimed the plaintiff agreed to pay for. In addition, in light of the fact that the plaintiff was fired due to poor work performance, she was not entitled to receive damages for lost wages.

Settlement Discussions

The plaintiff demanded $100,000 and the defendant offered $23,001 (C.C.P. 998).

Specials in Evidence

The plaintiff sought $42,000.

Damages

Under California Labor Code Section 970 and 972, the plaintiff sought to double her damages. She sought punitive damages in the amount of $100,000. She claimed her termination, which occurred mid-academic year, made it harder for her to obtain comparable employment. The plaintiff also sought damages for psychological treatment she received as well as moving expenses.

Injuries

Emotional distress caused by the termination.

Result

Defense verdict.