## Facts

- Vincent A. Gantt worked as a sales manager for Sentry Insurance.
- A coworker made a sexual-harassment complaint; Gantt reported and later corroborated the complaint to company management and to the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH).
- Gantt alleged Sentry retaliated after he refused to be less than truthful with the DFEH investigator.
- The alleged retaliation included demotion, loss of a book of business, and constructive discharge.

## Issues

1. Whether an employee may sue in tort for wrongful discharge in violation of public policy when terminated (or constructively discharged) for supporting a coworker’s sexual-harassment complaint and for truthfully cooperating with a DFEH investigation.
2. Whether such a public-policy wrongful-discharge claim is barred by the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) as an exclusive remedial scheme.
3. Whether the claim is barred by the exclusive-remedy provisions of the California Workers’ Compensation Act.
4. Whether additional employment-related tort theories (including tortious breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing and intentional infliction of emotional distress) may proceed.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court held the alleged retaliatory termination could support a common-law wrongful-discharge claim in violation of public policy under *Tameny*.
- The Court agreed that workers’ compensation exclusivity did not bar the *Tameny* claim because retaliation that undermines enforcement of anti-harassment laws falls outside the compensation bargain.
- The Court accepted that FEHA is exclusive to the extent a common-law theory merely duplicates FEHA’s specific statutory retaliation remedy, but held FEHA does not preempt a *Tameny* claim grounded in broader public policy against coercing false statements or obstructing a government investigation.
- The Court reaffirmed that tort damages for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing are not available in the employment context under controlling precedent.
- The Court agreed that an intentional infliction of emotional distress claim based on workplace conduct related to the employment relationship was barred by workers’ compensation exclusivity.

## Legal Principles

- A *Tameny* wrongful-discharge tort requires a fundamental, well-defined public policy grounded in constitutional or statutory sources.
- Retaliation against an employee for truthful cooperation with a government investigation into workplace sexual harassment violates public policy and may support a *Tameny* claim.
- FEHA may be exclusive where a claim directly duplicates FEHA’s statutory retaliation provisions, but it does not necessarily displace a *Tameny* claim rooted in broader public policy duties owed to the state (such as truthful participation and noninterference with investigations).
- Workers’ compensation exclusivity does not bar a wrongful-discharge claim when the employer’s conduct (retaliatory termination violating fundamental public policy) falls outside the workers’ compensation bargain.
- Tort recovery for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing is unavailable in the employment relationship.
- Emotional distress claims based on personnel-management conduct typically fall within workers’ compensation exclusivity unless the conduct is independently actionable outside that system.

## Conclusion

The California Supreme Court held that an employee may pursue a *Tameny* claim when alleged retaliation for truthful cooperation with a DFEH sexual-harassment investigation leads to termination or constructive discharge, and that this claim is not barred by workers’ compensation exclusivity; FEHA preempts only duplicative statutory-retaliation theories, while broader public-policy-based wrongful-discharge liability remains available.


Gantt v. Sentry Ins., 1 Cal. 4th 1083 (Cal. 1992)