Hearn v. Pacific Gas & Elec. Co., 108 Cal. App. 5^th 301 (2025)

In this case, the Court of Appeal reaffirmed the principle that an employee’s tort claim is not separately actionable against an employer when it is premised upon the same conduct that gave rise to the termination of employment and where the damages sought are solely related to the loss of employment. The Court relied upon case law going back as far as Foley v. Interactive Data Corp., 47 Cal. 3d 654 (1988), which delineates the ability of an employee to recover tort damages.

Todd Hearn went to trial on claims for (1) retaliation in violation of section 1102.5 of the California Labor Code and (2) defamation. Hearn’s former employer (PG&E) terminated Hearn based on findings from an investigation into various violations of the employee code of conduct. At trial, the jury found against Hearn on the retaliation claim but found in his favor on the defamation claim, awarding him $2.16 million in compensatory damages. The jury specifically found that the investigative report that resulted in Hearn’s termination was the source of the purportedly defamatory statements. PG&E moved for JNOV on the ground that Hearn had conceded that his damages for the alleged defamation were simply his termination-related damages – i.e., that he had suffered no distinct reputational harm or other damages specifically attributable to the allegedly defamatory conduct. The trial court denied PG&E’s JNOV motion.

In a 2-to-1 ruling, the Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s judgment entered in Hearn’s favor on the defamation cause of action, agreeing with PG&E that Hearn could not pursue a tort claim against PG&E based on the same conduct and seeking no distinct damages from his unsuccessful wrongful termination claim. In so ruling, the Court reaffirmed the long‑standing principle against an employee bringing a duplicative tort claim against an employer which is simply a wrongful termination claim by another name.