California Employment Law
Have California Employment Law Questions? Ask a Lawyer.
Hi, my name isXXXXX going to try and help.
First, CA is an employment at will state. At-will employment is a term applied to any employee who doesn't have a clearly defined contractual employment agreement. It means, essentially, than an employer can dismiss an employee at any time without cause.
So you ask whether it was legal or not....iin legal language, illegal means a criminal act. So, to be specifice, the employers action was not illegal per se. This does not mean there was not a tort (civil wrong).
With the emails and communications you have, you may indeed have enough to make a claim for breach of contract. Otherwise, CA is an eployment at will state. And considering the nature of the job, ie, per diem, it sounds like no emplyment contract was intended.
Here is a link to the CA bar association lawyer refereal service in case you need it.
You may also have a cause of action for detrimental reliance on the job offer....since you passed up others. Again, I doubt the hospital will give in unless you actually are represented by a lawyer, and even then, only a court can get them to make up for the wrong if the hospital does not want to cooperate.
All due respect but I wasn't expecting an answer from an attorney who graduated from law school two years ago, much less in Florida. The attorney who popped up on my screen to answer my question was a female attorney specializing in labor and employment law, with twenty years of experience.
Not to say your advice is wrong, but I think this site is misrepresenting its services
Thanks for your answer. I figured the actual law wouldn't matter and the employer would be able to get away with anything. Can I at least demand to have my background check sent to me. I understand that is the law.
I have no idea what you see on your screen. I also have three degrees and a law license. I was also a medic in the military and an emt firefighter for ten years...real familiar with nursing jobs. You can request info from human resources but I dont know what info they will give since you were technically not an employee. The are not required by law to disclose a background check on you.
I tell you what, Im going to opt out of this question and send it to the eployment and labor law category.
The site says you're typing. Can you
answer my last question?
Thanks. I appreciate that.
I checked a box on the background check authorization form that I'd like a copy of that report. My understanding of California law is that I'm entitled, whether or not the background check is used to rescind my offer of employment, to a copy of the background check. I'd like to ask for it (and my physical exam as well, if possible) from HR, and do so in a way that will get the results I'd like to achieve.
Thank you for your answer. I had to leave this site before you were able to get back to me, so didn't read your answer until today. One more quick question, if you don't mind?
As far as the background check and physical are concerned, after my offer was withdrawn I did some more searching of California law and I thought I found an area somewhere that indicated I could have a copy of the background check even if I didn't check the box on the authorization form, in fact, I thought if a true offer of employment was withdrawn, it was incumbent on the employer to produce the information in the background check or the physical that caused the offer to be withdrawn. Now, I realize you're saying that that my understanding of the law really doesn't matter and the employer can do whatever they want (what a surprise!) but can I at least request, and receive those two reports in this case? And if not, please explain the point of the law. Then I'll feel I got my fifty bucks worth.
Thanks very much,
So is my understanding of the offer and acceptance of employment contingent only on passing a background check and physical exam correct? Or is it simply that any "at-will" employer can simply "over-hire" as this one did, and then a month later claim they don't need you and get away with it? Is there some point to this law or I do I misunderstand it?