Simons 94 OPINION BY: SIMONS, J. RUSSELL J. NOTIDES, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. WESTINGHOUSE CREDIT CORPORATION et al., Defendants and Respondents. No. A062773. COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION TWO 40 Cal. App. 4th 148; 37 Cal. Rptr. 2d 585; 1994 Cal. App. LEXIS 1321 December 12, 1994, Decided lexis
Appellant suggests that Jenkins knew that the problem would be handled by curtailing new deals, not simply being selective. In his deposition he stated that "the step of curtailing new business is a logical one to take." Appellant seems to misunderstand the word "curtail" to mean "eliminate." Even if Jenkins made the same error, he said that this decision to curtail was not made until the Fall of 1990, several months after the hiring and shortly before Notides was informed of the decision.
Dostları ilə paylaş: |
