Skip to main content

Esberg v. Union Oil Co.

Cal. Ct. App.May 16, 2001No. G022069Cited 2 times
Mixed ResultUnion Oil Company of California$51,000 awarded
Facing something similar at work?Check your rights — free, private, no sign-up

Case Details

Status — whether other courts must follow this ruling
Published
Procedural Posture — the stage the case had reached
jury verdict

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

Claim Types

DiscriminationWrongful TerminationBreach of ContractRetaliation

Outcome

The jury found in favor of plaintiff Esberg on breach of implied-in-fact contract and breach of covenant of good faith and fair dealing claims, awarding $51,000 in economic damages. However, the trial court granted judgment notwithstanding the verdict on the public policy tort claim, eliminating $35,000 in noneconomic damages, and the court rejected the FEHA age discrimination claim on statutory interpretation grounds.

Browse more:Discrimination casesWrongful Termination casesBreach of Contract casesRetaliation cases

Similar Rulings

Esberg
Cal. SupremeJun 2002
Defendant Win
Con Ed v. NLRB
U.S. Supreme CourtDec 1938
Mixed Result
Universal Camera Corp. v. National Labor Relations Board
U.S. Supreme CourtFeb 1951
Remanded
Vega
2nd CircuitSep 2015
Remanded
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. St. Francis Xavier Parochial School and St. Francis Xavier Church
D.C. CircuitJul 1997
Remanded
Read Full OpinionMore Union Oil Company of California RulingsAll Rulings

Browse Related

More discrimination casesMore energy & utilities employer cases

Facing something similar at work?

Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 3 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.

Check My RightsLearn the Basics

This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. Case outcomes, claim types, and summaries are extracted using AI analysis and may be incomplete or inaccurate. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.

See something wrong, or named in this ruling and want it corrected or redacted? Request a correction.