Any labor law attorneys here? I'm wondering

[intheozone]

what, under California law, would constitute conditions of "constructive termination" for purposes of a wrongful termination lawsuit. Say you have a long-term (over 15 yrs) employee who realizes there has been very unethical and illegal actions by one or more of the employers' owners, raises the issue with another (ethical owner) and then is suddenly treated very differently than ever before with respect to annual raise and annual evaluation! But there are no negative changes in employees production (in fact production increased substantially) or work product (also increased) that can be pointed to as the reason for the change in treatment.
Does that sound like it could border on constructive termination?
Any help would be appreciated guys. Thanks a lot.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

1. Not really.

YOu have to prove that the condition were so intolerable that any REASONABLE PERSON (key word) would have quit under those conditions. You also have to prove that your employer INTENTIONALLy or KNOWINGLY created the conditions.

The courts have already ruled that a single or even a couple negative performance evaluations, or even a reduction in pay do not rise to this level of proof

[intheozone]

2. thanks for your response, so even if the negative

evaluation is not based on any substance and a pay reduction is targeted to only one employee, that is OK?

[Sanity Claws]

3. You didn't mention pay reduction before

Earlier you mentioned failure to get a raise and that this was different from how you were treated before.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

5. even a pay reduction wouldn't be sufficient to make a case

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

4. The cheapest way to go about it would be to contact the EEOC

and see what they say...otherwise, the events you've desribed thus far would not rise to the threshhold. I suggest documenting everything, however. Just because it doesn't rise to the level now does not mean it won't in the future and if you can directly TIE the events following that disclosure, then you might have a case in the future. The two negative things you describe at this point don't make it though.

[Sanity Claws]

6. EEOC won't help

EEOC has jurisdiction over the anti-discrimination laws, like Title VII, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, and the ADA. It has no jurisdiction over the type of claim (whistleblowing maybe) that he may have.
As for the reduction, that may be sufficient. I know in Washington state, if there's a pay reduction of 25% or more, the person may quit and recover employment security benefitst.
In any event, I think this person should consult with an attorney in his jurisdiction. The loss of a job is potentially a loss of thousands or tens of thousands of dollars. In light of that, it makes sense to spend $200 to get some advice.

[intheozone]

7. thanks again, I will be documenting everything possible

and gathering the evidence available to me. There was a definiate, significant change in attitude towards me immediately after my supervisor (the owner I informed of the wrong doing) told one of the other owners. My supervisor hasn't changed but the other owners changed immediately. I mentioned the change in attitude to 3 co-workers without disclosing the wrong doing I discovered. I think that owner, not my supervisor but someone I work with, got really pissed and has influenced a few of the other owners.
I will be contacting a labor law attorney tomorrow to find out what I can and can't do. I have reason to believe I could be summarily let go regardless of what my supervisor thinks and I don't want to do anything to jeopardize a case I might have against them.