KSupreme Court of California, 1970draftborradorunverifiedsin verificar

Parker v. Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corp.

3 Cal. 3d 176, 474 P.2d 689 (1970)

Shirley MacLaine, a cancelled musical, and a western she did not have to make

In one lineEn una línea: A wrongfully discharged employee need not mitigate by accepting substitute work that is different or inferior; the studio's offer of a western in Australia did not reduce the actress's damages.La empleada despedida sin causa no tiene que mitigar aceptando un trabajo distinto o inferior; la oferta de un western en Australia no redujo los daños de la actriz.
RuleRegla: The measure of recovery for wrongful discharge is the agreed salary less the amount the employer proves the employee earned or with reasonable effort might have earned from other employment of the same kind; the employee need not accept different or inferior employment, and the employer bears the burden on mitigation.
Why this case is herePor qué está aquí este caso: The mitigation case for employment contracts (Part VII): an employee wrongfully discharged must mitigate by accepting comparable work, but need not accept employment that is different or inferior; what counts as comparable is the fight.
Procedural posturePostura procesal: The actress sued for the guaranteed compensation after the studio cancelled the film and offered a different one; summary judgment for the actress, affirmed over a dissent.

Facts

Fox contracted with Shirley MacLaine Parker to star in Bloomer Girl, a musical to be filmed in Los Angeles, for $750,000. Fox cancelled the picture and offered her the lead in Big Country, Big Man, a western to be filmed in Australia at the same pay but without the approval rights the first contract gave her. She refused and sued for the guaranteed compensation.

Procedural posture

Summary judgment for Parker for the full amount; affirmed 6–1.

Issue

Whether Parker’s refusal of the western was a failure to mitigate that reduced her damages.

Holding

No. The substitute was both different and inferior, so she was not required to accept it; Fox failed to show any comparable employment she unreasonably refused.

Reasoning

The court restated the mitigation rule for wrongful discharge and held that the differences between the two roles (genre, location, loss of approvals) made the offer inferior as a matter of law. The employer, not the employee, bears the burden of showing available comparable work.

Rule (own words)

Fire someone and you owe the salary minus what they could reasonably have earned doing the same kind of job. A worse job does not count.

What-ifs

Fox offered the same musical, same city, same terms, three months later: comparable; refusal would reduce damages.
Parker took a television role for $200,000 during the period: her damages are reduced by what she earned.
A Mexican employee dismissed without cause: constitutional severance and back pay under the LFT, with no mitigation offset of this kind.

Likely follow-upsRepreguntas probables

Why was the western different and inferior as a matter of law?

A musical in Los Angeles versus a dramatic western in Australia, and the substitute contract removed her approval rights over the director and screenplay; the majority found no triable issue.

What did the dissent argue?

That whether the two roles were comparable was a fact question for trial; the majority's categorical approach let the actress avoid any inquiry into what a reasonable actress would have accepted.

How does this interact with Luten Bridge?

Both apply avoidability: the injured party cannot recover losses it could reasonably have avoided; Parker defines what avoidance is reasonable for an employee.

mitigation (avoidability, R.2d § 350)avoidability expectation damages (R.2d § 347)

Compare withComparar con: Rockingham County v. Luten Bridge Co. (companion)

AssignedAsignado: 2026-11-19

Read the public opinionLeer la opinión (texto público). SourceFuente: Own brief from the public opinion; verify quotations against the opinion..