The employment-at-will doctrine: Three major exceptions

Monthly Labor Review

Volumn 124, Issue 1, 2001, Pages 3-11

  Muhl, Charles J ^a  

^a BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0009953524     PISSN: 00981818     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (44)

1. Shane and Rosenthal, Employment Law Deskbook, § 16.02 (1999).
2. Jeanne Duquette Gorr, The Model Employment Termination Act: Fruitful Seed or Noxious Weed? 31 DUQLR 111 (fall 1992); see also Robert W. Fisher, "When workers are discharged - an overview," Monthly Labor Review, June 1973, pp. 4-17.
3. Jeanne Duquette Gorr, The Model Employment Termination Act: Fruitful Seed or Noxious Weed? 31 DUQLR 111 (fall 1992); see also Robert W. Fisher, "When workers are discharged - an overview," Monthly Labor Review, June 1973, pp. 4-17.
4. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. This article does not address statutory exceptions to employment at will. Many such exceptions have been enacted at both the Federal and State level. For example, Federal law prevents employment discrimination, including termination for engaging in lawful union activities (see National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. § 201-219, 1978) and for safety and health violations at the workplace (see Occupational Safety and Health Act, 29 U.S.C. § 651-678, 1985), among others. Certain States have laws preventing employers from terminating employees for whistle-blowing (reporting potential violations of law committed by the employer); other State laws prohibit employers from terminating employees who file a worker's compensation claim or serve on a jury. (See, generally, Shane and Rosenthal, Employment Law Deskbook.) However, only two States -Arizona and Montana - have enacted comprehensive wrongful termination legislation. Montana passed the Wrongful Discharge from Employment Act in 1987, and Arizona enacted its Employment Protection Act in 1996. Of the two, the Montana statute is broader in the scope of its protections for employees.
5. Courts in Arizona had recognized all three exceptions until passage of the Employment Protection Act.
6. 174 Cal.App.2d 184 (1959).
7. 174 Cal.App.2d at 188.
8. Deborah A. Ballum, "Employment-at-will: The Impending Death of a Doctrine," 37 Am. Bus. L.J. 653, 660 (summer 2000).
9. See, for example, Pacheo v. Raytheon, 623 A.2d 464 (R.I. 1993); and Murphy v. American Home Products Corp., 58 N.Y.2d 293, 448 N.E.2d (1983).
10. 85 Ill.2d 124, 421 N.E.2d 876 (1981).
11. Id. at 878.
12. Id.
13. 113 Wis.2d 561, 335 N.W.2d 834 (1983).
14. Id. at 839-40.
15. Id. at 840, citing Palmateer v. International Harvester Co., 421 N.E.2d at 883.
16. See Wandry v. Eye Credit Union, 129 Wis.2d 37, 384 N.W.2d 325 (1986).
17. See Winkelman v. Beloit Memorial Hosp., 168 Wis.2d 12, 483 N.W.2d 211 (1992).
18. At this time, it is unclear how Maine views the public-policy exception, as no decision has addressed it directly.
19. 58 N.Y.2d 293, 448 N.E.2d 86 (1983).
20. Id. at 302.
21. One year after the decision was rendered, the New York legislature enacted the Retaliatory Action by Employers Act, amending the State's labor law so that it would protect whistle-blowers from wrongful termination. See N.Y. LAB. LAW § 740 (Gould's New York Consolidated Laws Unannotated, 1988).
22. Shane and Rosenthal, Employment Law Deskbook, § 16.03[5].
23. 408 Mich. 579, 292 N.W.2d 880 (1980).
24. Id. at 644.
25. Id.
26. The following is a sample disclaimer, which must be clear and unambiguous in the handbook or policy in order to be effective: "This policy is not intended as a contractual obligation of the company. The company reserves the right to amend this policy from time to time at its discretion and in accordance with applicable law."
27. 333 N.W.2d 622 (1983).
28. Id. at 626-27.
29. 427 So.2d 266 (1983).
30. Id. at 268.
31. Id. at 269.
32. Id. at 270.
33. 720 S.W.2d 124 (1986).
34. 320 Pa.Super. 106, 466 A.2d 1084 (1983).
35. Shane and Rosenthal, Employment Law Deskbook, § 16.03[8].
36. Id.
37. 111 Cal.App.3d 443 (1980).
38. Id. at 455.
39. See Foley v. Interactive Data Corp., 47 Cal.3d 654, 765 P.2d 373 (Cal. 1988).
40. 103 Nev. 39, 732 P.2d 1364 (1987).
41. In the trial, the court did find that an employment contract existed that Kmart had breached.
42. Id. at 49.
43. Id. at 51, quoting F. Tannenbaum, A Philosophy of Labor (1951).
44. 381 So.2d 265 (1980).