California Labor Code Section 970 protects employees from being induced to move to or within California for a job under false pretenses, i.e. where they were pomised a certain position on certain terms, while the employer knew that the terms would be different. The law states: “No person, or agent or officer thereof, directly or indirectly, shall influence, persuade, or engage any person to change from one place to another in this State or from any place outside to any place within the State, or from any place within the State to any place outside, for the purpose of working in any branch of labor, through or by means of knowingly false representations, whether spoken, written, or advertised in printed form.”
To prevail on a Section 970 claim, the plaintiff must prove: (1) the defendant employer made representations to the plaintiff employee about the kind or character of work, or the length of time the work would last; (2) the defendant’s representations were not true; (3) the defendant knew when the representations were made that they were not true; (4) the defendant intended that the plaintiff rely on the representations; (5) the plaintiff reasonably relied on the
representations and changed his or her residence for the purpose of working for the defendant; (6) the plaintiff was harmed; and (7) the plaintiff’s reliance on the defendant’s representations was a substantial factor in causing his or her harm.
Two critical points often come up in section 970 litigation:
(1) Does an at-will employee have a valid claim under section 970, if he was orally promised and moved for a job for a specified period of time? The answer is usually “no”, becuase oral representations about the length of employment do not change the otherwise at-will nature of employment, where an employee can be terminated or quit at any time for any reason or no reason. Thus, if a hiring managers tell you that this is a long term opportunity or they see a bright future for you at the company and it doesn’t turn out to be the case later, this fact alone will not form a basis for a claim under this section.
(2) Does an at-will employee have a valid claim under section 970, if the position he was hired and move for turns out to be materially different and inferior from the one presented to him and which he negotiated? The answer to this question is often yes, beause the law does protect against false representations regarding “the kind, character, or existence of work”. Thus, if a hiring manager makes the job sound way better than it turns out to be in terms of job duties, responsibility, and especially compensation, the employee who was mislead this way will likely have a valid claim under this section. Because the law specifically protects against spoken misrepresentations, the candidate’s testimony regarding what he was told his job would be will be probative as evidence, even where the employer denies making any or all of the promises at issue.
The typical key challenge in proving section 970 cases is establishing that the employer knew, at the time of offering a job, that the terms of employment promised were not going to materialize. This can be proven through careful evaluation of all the facts and circumstances of a given situation.