Once an employee is dismissed, is an employer obligated to pay a bonus that was verbally promised to the employee at the time he was employed there?

That would depend on the terms of the bonus agreement.

There were no terms other than her verbal promise to pay me, along with three other employees, a bonus of $300.00 to be placed on our February paycheck for a deadline met last December which was fully completed at that time. At this point I don't know if the other employees received their bonuses because I was fired last January and I wouldn't want to bring them into this because they probably are still employed there. Again, all I have is her verbal promise. When I requested the bonus after my firing I was told that I was not owed that money because it fell under the guise of a bonus and not wages. Do I have any rights here?

Michael or Megan can correct me if I'm wrong, CA law being what it is, but on the basis of the facts you have posted I think it quite unlikely that you are entitled by law to that bonus. While I can think of circumstances in which you would be owed it anyway, nothing you have posted suggests that those circumstances exist here.

I agree with cbg on this one. This is not a labor law issue, it is simply a contract issue. The big problem is that I don't see a contract here. Because the work was fully completed at the time of the promise, there was nothing given up on your part. As such, this is not a contract, it is just a promise. The difference is that, in general, courts will enforce a contract but not a promise.

I do have a question about your response though. I thought that a verbal contract was binding as in the Kim Basinger case when Fine Line Cinema sued her after backing out of a verbal agreement to appear in a movie. If I remember correctly she even had to declare bankruptcy after the fact to recoupe her losses. Are the two cases similar at all in scope?

This is my last post for this subject and thanks for all your timely assistance on this matter.

A verbal contract is binding. However, the above would not be contract even if it was written in stone and signed in blood. A contract needs many things. One of these things is that both sides give up something of value at the time of the contract.

Thus a statement "I will give you $300 tomorrow" is not a contract. It is not a contract if it is in writting. It is not a contract if the writting is notorized.

A statement "You give me your watch, and I will give you $300 tomorrow" is a contract. It would make not difference if it was verbal or written.

This case is more like the statement "Thank you for giving me your watch as a Christmas present. I will give you $300 in February." This is not a contract because the watch was already given as a gift. Thus, at the time of the statement, only one side is giving something of value and it is not a contract.

The case of Kim Basinger would be different. She agreed to work for the producer, and the producer agreed to pay her money for it. In her case, the work was not yet performed. In your case it was.