1 / 9

Part Three:

Part Three:. Tort-Based Protections for Workers. Chapter 4:. The Public Policy Exception to the At-Will Rule.  terminated after his subordinate negligently created dangerous condition. π ’s claims he was fired: (1) because he didn’t support the termination;

bdotson
Download Presentation

Part Three:

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Part Three: Tort-Based Protections for Workers

  2. Chapter 4: The Public Policy Exception to the At-Will Rule

  3.  terminated after his subordinate negligently created dangerous condition. π’s claims he was fired: (1) because he didn’t support the termination; (2) because Δ feared his testimony in subordinate’s threatened legal action. Fitzgerald v. Salsbury Chemical

  4. Fitzgerald v. Salsbury Chemical Court’s Analytic Framework Three elements: • engagement in “protected activity”; • discharge; and • causal link: activity discharge.

  5. Fitzgerald v. Salsbury Chemical • Refusal to commit perjury = protected activity • Intention to so testify = protected activity • Is this pushing the principle too far?

  6. Fitzgerald v. Salsbury Chemical Outcome: Summary judgment in Δ’s favor improper π’s claim for the jury.

  7. Fitzgerald Notes • The public policy tort is widely, but not universally, recognized • New York is the major exception • But attorneys protected at common law • New York, statutes provide niche protections • Framing the issue • More specific the public policy must be, the rarer the tort • Nexus between policy and at-issue conduct

  8. Fitzgerald Notes • Public policy must protect “the public” • Foley v. Interactive: at issue policy was for the protection of the employer • Restatement’s focus on harm to “third parties and society” • Wrongful discipline or only wrongful discharge? • Constructive discharge • Reasonable or right? • Attorneys – a special case? • More protection – Weider v. Skala • Less protection – Herbster v. N.A. Co. for Life & Health Ins.

  9. Rackley v. Fairview Care Centers

More Related