San Francisco Employment Law Firm Blog
You leave a steady job, move your family, and sign a new lease because an employer describes an opportunity worth relocating for. Months later, the company eliminates your position, or you discover that the job was never what you were told it would be. Does signing an at-will offer letter mean you have no case against that employer? Not necessarily. California Labor Code section 970 prohibits knowingly false statements used to persuade someone to relocate for work. An at-will agreement can create a serious obstacle to a claim based on promised job security. But it does not automatically defeat a claim that the employer lied about the actual job. That distinction was central to the case of White v. Smule, Inc. (2022) 75 Cal.App.5th 346.
The case: recruited to build a team, terminated five months later
Kenneth White alleged that Smule recruited him to help reorganize its project management operations. According to his evidence, the company needed an experienced leader to develop and manage a team, improve its processes, and support expansion. White left his job in Washington and moved his family to the Bay Area. He signed an offer letter stating that his employment was at will, and that representations outside the letter were not binding. Five months later, Smule terminated him, saying his position was being eliminated.
White claimed that the company had never intended to employ him in the leadership role it described. Instead, he arguedm, it wanted his recommendations for improving operations and then dispensed with his position. The trial court ruled for Smule without a trial dismissing the case, relying on White’s at-will agreement. The Court of Appeal reversed, concluding that his claim about the nature of the job could proceed despite his at-will status.
What does California Labor Code 970 cover?
Section 970 addresses knowingly false representations used to induce relocation for work, including statements about:
- The kind of work, its actual responsibilities, or whether the work exists.
- How long the work will last or how much it pays.
- Related sanitary or housing conditions.
- Certain existing labor disputes affecting the work.
The statute covers qualifying moves within California, into California, and from California to another state. It is not limited to executives, interstate moves, or jobs with a relocation package. The connection between the statement and the move matters. You must be able to explain what you were told, why it influenced your decision to relocate, and how relying on it caused harm. A disappointing job alone does not establish a section 970 violation.
An at-will agreement matters, but read what was actually promised
In White, the court distinguished assurances of long-term employment from representations about the role itself.
White’s signed agreement and admissions defeated his argument that he reasonably understood the company to guarantee long-term employment. But agreeing that employment may end at any time did not necessarily make it unreasonable to believe the company actually intended to employ him in the position described during recruitment.
Consider two different statements:
- “This is a great long-term opportunity.”
- “We are hiring you to build and supervise our project management team.”
The first may be difficult to treat as a guarantee of continued employment when the offer expressly says otherwise. The second describes the job. If the employer knowingly misrepresented that role to induce a move, at-will language does not automatically resolve the claim. The offer letter still needs careful review. Specific written terms contradicting a recruiting statement may create additional problems with proving reasonable reliance.
Being fired soon after moving does not, by itself, prove fraud
The critical question is what the employer knew or intended when it made the representation.
A company may genuinely plan to expand and later lose funding, customers, or a major contract. A later change in circumstances does not necessarily make its earlier statements fraudulent. When the claim concerns a promise, the employee must establish that the employer did not intend to perform it when it was made.
In White, the evidence went beyond the short employment period. White submitted a comprehensive improvement plan and was terminated within two weeks. There were also conflicting accounts about whether he lacked the skills for the position. Taken together, the court found enough circumstantial evidence to infer that the company had wanted his recommendations rather than the ongoing leadership role it described. That is why a precise timeline and contradictory records can be more useful than simply insisting that the employer lied.
What evidence should you preserve?
If you believe an employer misled you into relocating, organize:
- Recruiting statements: Job postings, recruiter emails, texts, interview notes, and messages describing the role, compensation, staffing, or company plans.
- The written agreement: The offer letter, attachments, relocation terms, and documents you signed during onboarding.
- Your reliance: When you resigned, signed a lease, arranged the move, or made other commitments, and which statements influenced each decision.
- What actually happened: Your assignments, changes in responsibilities, hiring decisions, termination explanation, and relevant witness names.
- Your losses: Moving bills, lease-related expenses, prior and subsequent earnings, and records of your efforts to find replacement work.
Oral statements can support a claim, but identifying the speaker, approximate date, exact substance, and any witnesses makes them easier to evaluate.
Can you recover double damages?
Labor Code section 972 provides for double damages resulting from a proven section 970 violation. Potential losses may include relocation expenses and lost earnings attributable to the misrepresentation, depending on the evidence and applicable damages rules. Recovery is not automatically limited to the moving bill, but neither is every financial setback after the move recoverable. You must establish the connection between the deception and the loss. Signing a year-long lease, for example, does not automatically make the entire year’s rent recoverable. Earnings, avoided expenses, and reasonable efforts to reduce losses may affect the calculation.