Wrongful discharge law and the search for third-party effects

Texas Law Review

Volumn 74, Issue 7, 1996, Pages 1943-

  Schwab, Stewart J ^a  

^a NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0043040772     PISSN: 00404411     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Review

References (7)

1. See Nees v. Hocks, 536 P.2d 512 (Or. 1975).
2. See Petermann v. International Bhd. of Teamsters, 344 P.2d 25 (Cal. Dist. Ct. App. 1959).
3. In Nees, the employee sued for prima facie tort. Nees, 536 P.2d at 513. In Petermann, the employee brought suit on a theory of good faith and fair dealing. Peterman, 344 P.2d at 28.
4. See Murphy v. American Home Prods. Corp., 448 N.E.2d 86, 90 (N.Y. 1983) ("[W]e conclude that recognition in New York State of tort liability for . . . wrongful discharge should await legislative action."). In addition, Georgia, Louisiana, and Mississippi do not recognize the tort. IRA M. SHEPARD ET AL., WORKPLACE PRIVACY 328 (2d ed. 1989).
5. See, e.g., Lawrence E. Blades, Employment At Will vs. Individual Freedom: On Limiting the Abusive Exercise of Employer Power, 67 COLUM. L. REV. 1404, 1405, 1434-35 (1967) (urging the courts to create a tort of abusive discharge "to protect the economically dependent employee from employer power"); Gary Minda & Katie R. Raab, Time for an Unjust Dismissal Statute in New York, 54 BROOK. L. REV. 1137, 1150 (1989) ("Limitations of the employment at-will doctrine only require judges to interpret the at-will presumption in light of . . . fundamental principles of fairness."); cf. Cornelius J. Peck, Unjust Discharges from Employment: A Necessary Change in the Law, 40 OHIO ST. L.J. 1 (1979) (using an equal protection rationale to argue for just-cause protection for employees).
6. See, e.g., Lawrence E. Blades, Employment At Will vs. Individual Freedom: On Limiting the Abusive Exercise of Employer Power, 67 COLUM. L. REV. 1404, 1405, 1434-35 (1967) (urging the courts to create a tort of abusive discharge "to protect the economically dependent employee from employer power"); Gary Minda & Katie R. Raab, Time for an Unjust Dismissal Statute in New York, 54 BROOK. L. REV. 1137, 1150 (1989) ("Limitations of the employment at-will doctrine only require judges to interpret the at-will presumption in light of . . . fundamental principles of fairness."); cf. Cornelius J. Peck, Unjust Discharges from Employment: A Necessary Change in the Law, 40 OHIO ST. L.J. 1 (1979) (using an equal protection rationale to argue for just-cause protection for employees).
7. See, e.g., Lawrence E. Blades, Employment At Will vs. Individual Freedom: On Limiting the Abusive Exercise of Employer Power, 67 COLUM. L. REV. 1404, 1405, 1434-35 (1967) (urging the courts to create a tort of abusive discharge "to protect the economically dependent employee from employer power"); Gary Minda & Katie R. Raab, Time for an Unjust Dismissal Statute in New York, 54 BROOK. L. REV. 1137, 1150 (1989) ("Limitations of the employment at-will doctrine only require judges to interpret the at-will presumption in light of . . . fundamental principles of fairness."); cf. Cornelius J. Peck, Unjust Discharges from Employment: A Necessary Change in the Law, 40 OHIO ST. L.J. 1 (1979) (using an equal protection rationale to argue for just-cause protection for employees).