Justice Judith McConnell, "an at-will employer does not have carte
blanche to lie to an employee about any matter whatsoever to trick
him or her into accepting employment." The Appellate Court decided
that Mr. Agosta could properly sue for "the loss of security and
income associated with his former employment."
This means that Mr. Agosta's lawsuit is alive and well. His
attorney thinks it will send a message to employers that an at-will
contract is not quite what it used to be. His hope is that this
ruling will lead employers to treat their employees more fairly.
I like this ruling. I don't like it when people are induced to
leave their jobs by promises that the person making the promises is
planning to take back. I don't think anyone would dispute the fact
that Mr. Agosta had a pretty good job with Clear Channel. He traded
his $150,000 salary for a salary half as great, but with the
managerial commission and the equity he had the opportunity to make a
whole lot more. Suddenly, once Mr. Agosta left Clear Channel and was
working for Mr. Astor, the rug was pulled out from under him. Mr.
Astor felt he held all the cards due to the at-will clause he
cleverly included in the agreement. It is nice to see that the
Appellate Court decided this was not how it should be.
Mr. Astor is considering taking this case to the Supreme Court of
the state of California; however, I would like to think if he does
so, he will lose again. You just can't take someone from his job and
then change the rules on him once he gets there. As Mr. Astor owns a
radio net- work, I assume he has been a successful businessman.
However, I am glad to see that the 4th District Court has given him
his comeuppance.
* CHARLES J. UNGER is a criminal defense attorney in the Glendale
law firm of Flanagan, Unger & Grover, and a therapist at the Foothill
Centre for Personal and Family Growth. He writes a bimonthly column
on legal and psychological issues. He can be reached at
www.charlieunger.com or at 244-8694.
