Download
1 / 9
90 likes | 113 Views
This chapter delves into the public policy exception to the at-will employment rule, using the case of Fitzgerald v. Salsbury Chemical to illustrate key elements and outcomes. The court's analytic framework, engagement in protected activity, discharge, and causal link are explored in detail, questioning the limits of this exception. The significance of refusing to commit perjury and intention to testify as protected activities is analyzed, with a focus on the nexus between policy and the conduct at issue. New York's unique approach to public policy tort and statutes providing specialized protections are highlighted, alongside discussions on wrongful discipline, constructive discharge, and implications for attorneys. This chapter provides insights into the varying degrees of protection afforded in different contexts, emphasizing the delicate balance between public policy interests and individual rights in employment termination cases.
E N D
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; (2) because Δ feared his testimony in subordinate’s threatened legal action. Fitzgerald v. Salsbury Chemical
Fitzgerald v. Salsbury Chemical Court’s Analytic Framework Three elements: • engagement in “protected activity”; • discharge; and • causal link: activity discharge.
Fitzgerald v. Salsbury Chemical • Refusal to commit perjury = protected activity • Intention to so testify = protected activity • Is this pushing the principle too far?
Fitzgerald v. Salsbury Chemical Outcome: Summary judgment in Δ’s favor improper π’s claim for the jury.
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
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.
