Case Summary

2821 DEPUBLISHED After an employee was physically assaulted by his employer, otherwise trivial acts by the employer might be sufficiently significant to result in constructive termination and might be sufficiently outrageous to justify recovery for intentional infliction of emotional distress; termination for refusing to deceive customers violates public policy; an employee who remained seated because he had been ordered to do so by his employer immediately after the employer physically assaulted him and with knowledge that the employer kept a firearm may thereby have been falsely imprisoned; the appropriate remedy for a trial court to employ in the event of excessive damages is a remittitur, rather than a judgment notwithstanding the verdict.

McFETTERS v AMPLICON (Assaulted Employee) 82 CA4 200 [See: Turner v Anheuser-Busch 7 C4 1238, T/AT 8/94; B&PC 17200; Foley v Ineractive 47 C3 654; Green v Ralee 19 C4 66, T/AT 10/98; CivC 1709; PenC 484; Ware v Dunn 80 CA2 936; Schanafelt v Seaboard 108 CA2 420; Potter v Firestone 6 C4 965, T/AT 2/94; Agarwal v Johnson 25 C3 932; Alcorn v Anbro 2 C3 493; CCP 662.5; Teitel v First LA Bank 231 CA3 1593]