of at-will employment to arise. See Guz, 24 Cal.4th at 336-44, 100 Cal.Rptr.2d at 365-71, 8 P.3d 1089. However, an implied-in-fact agreement not to terminate without good cause cannot arise when there is an express agreement providing that employment is at will. See id. at 337, 100 Cal.Rptr.2d at 366, 8 P.3d 1089 (“Where there is no express agreement, the issue is whether other evidence of the parties’ conduct [creates an implied-in-fact agreement].”). An implied-in-fact contract requiring cause for termination is fundamentally inconsistent with an express at-will contract, and the terms of the express contract cannot be rewritten by implications arising from later conduct. See Camp v. Jeffer, Mangels, Butler, & Marmaro, 35 Cal.App.4th 620, 630-31, 41 Cal.Rptr.2d 329, 334-35 (1995) (<HOLDING>). Thus, because Plaintiff and Defendant had
holding as a matter of law that the existence of an expense reimbursement policy alone did not create an implied contract limiting the employers right to terminate an employee atwill holding that plaintiffs express contract with the surety company precludes an implied contract with defendant holding that the plaintiffs express atwill agreement precluded the existence of an implied contract requiring good cause for termination holding failure to establish terms of an oral loan agreement precluded the existence of a breach of contract claim recognizing cause of action for implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing in atwill employment contract