Gomez v. Lee Armstrong Co.
This appeal concerns plaintiff Robert Gomezs claim that he was wrongfully terminated by defendant Lee Armstrong Co., Inc. (LAC) in violation of public policy. Plaintiff alleged the same claim against LACs owner, defendant Steve Armstrong (Armstrong), under an alter ego theory.[1] According to plaintiffs allegations, he had a long-term employment relationship with LAC as a floor-installer. Twice, when pulling up tiles or carpet on an LAC jobsite, he encountered the carcinogen asbestos. Plaintiff notified his supervisors and refused to do additional work on those projects. As a result, he contends LAC reduced his work hours before firing him for his asbestos complaints, using the pretext that he refused to show up to work when ordered at a time when the employer knew he had conflicting childcare responsibilities. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of LAC and Armstrong, finding insufficient evidence as to various elements of plaintiffs claims. As relevant to this appeal, the trial court found no substantial evidence of the required nexus between the public policy of preventing an employees exposure to asbestos and plaintiffs termination as an at-will employee, and no evidentiary basis for disregarding LACs corporate status. Our independent review demonstrates that summary judgment was properly granted and there was no abuse of discretion in denying the reconsideration motion. Court therefore affirm.
Comments on Gomez v. Lee Armstrong Co.