Munoz v. Kaiser Steel Corporation

156 Cal.App.3d 965, 203 Cal.Rptr. 345 (1984)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

P was living in Texas with his wife and two children. In a period of about six months, P had been laid off from two separate jobs, the last of which he had held for about five months. P decided to seek more stable employment in the Southern California area. P came to Southern California and sought job interviews. On March 14, 1979, unsolicited, he dropped into the personnel department at D, explained his qualifications, and asked whether a job might be available. D was given an interview with Mr. Steritz, the coke plant superintendent, following which he was tentatively hired as a labor foreman at a salary of $ 1,800 per month pending management confirmation. Steritz stated to P that he 'would be trained for at least three years.' P understood this statement to mean that he was assured employment or a minimum of three years. P returned to Texas and on or about May 1, 1979, was informed by telephone that his employment was confirmed. He commenced work for Kaiser on May 7, 1979. P decided to permanently move to California and sold his home in Dallas, Texas for $57,000. P purchased a new home in Highland, California, for $60,000, and the down payment of approximately $5,000 came from the proceeds of the sale of the house in Texas from which D netted about $30,000. P's monthly mortgage payments on the Highland house were approximately $607 exclusive of taxes and insurance. P received approximately three weeks of on-the-job training. P's supervisor expressed some dissatisfaction with his performance and he was soon transferred to another job known as 'top foreman.' Plaintiff continued in that job until he was discharged on or about October 31, 1979. P was let go because of a bad economy. P diligently sought other employment. Although he obtained some part-time, temporary work at odd jobs, he was not successful in securing full-time employment until about June 1981 when he went to work as a state police officer at Chico State University. P commenced this action on March 10, 1980. D moved for summary judgment on the statute of frauds in that P’s complaint was on a supposed oral contract of employment for 3 years.