About BNET Shopper.com
Find Featured Titles for: Health
impact of General Dynamics Corp. v. Superior Court on the impact of evolving tort on retaliatory discharge
Washington and Lee Law Review Print | Search Antivirus Software
pain and mental suffering. See Kelsay v. Motorola, Inc., 384 N.E.2d 353, 359-60 (I11. 1978) (permitting recovery of award punitive damages in particular case). that two exceptions to employment at-will rule are discharge in violation by Perry, 512 N.W.2d 565, 566 (Iowa 1994) (stating that recover under the retaliatory discharge tort cause of punitive damages in retaliatory discharge action); see also Hansen v. Harrah"s, 675 P.2d 394, 397 (Nev. 1984) (permitting recovery of public policy and contract implied for terms of punitive damages in retaliatory discharge cases, but refusing to breach of employee handbook); Rood v. General Dynamics Corp., 507 N.W.2d 591, 598 (Mich. 1993) (stating that wrongful discharge plaintiff can bring action either in tort or in contract). In contrast to 57. See Borschel v. City of contract claims, plaintiffs of action may receive punitive damages and damages
- | About CBS Interactive
- the...
- SWOT Analysis - To Make Your Business More Profitable of understanding organizational culture
- How of state... to set performance goals: employee reviews are more than annual critiques
- Problems and solutions to evolution of corporate blogging: model corporate blogging...
- What factors attract foreign direct investment?
its adoption as available cause of action for in-house attorneys). Retaliatory discharge falls within the public policy exception to that at-will employment doctrine. Kim, supra note 3, at 893-94.
its adoption as available cause of cases recognizing exception). to 59. See Keneally v. Orgain, 606 P.2d 127, 129 (Mont. 1980) (stating that unjustified firing does not give rise of action arises only when discharge violates public policy); HOLLOWAY & LEECH, supra note 46, at 144 (discussing evolution of wrongful discharge action, but cause of jurisdictions that recognize public policy exception and sampling of action for retalitory discharge tort); Kim, supra note 3, at 894 (explaining retaliatory discharge and arguing for in-house attorneys); see also infra note 76 (providing list
61. See Midgett, 473 N.E.2d at 1285 (stating for employee"s activities).
60. See Midgett v. Sackett-Chicago, Inc., 473 N.E.2d 1280, 1285 (Ill. 1994) (naming required elements of retaliatory discharge tort), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 909 (1985); Herbster v. North Am. Co. for discharge was retaliatory); Herbster, 501 N.E.2d at 344 (stating that plaintiff must allege that plaintiff must show that employer discharged employee in retaliation for Health & Life Ins., 501 N.E.2d 343, 344 (Ill. App. Ct. 1986) (same), appeal denied, 508 N.E.2d 729 (Ill.), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 850 (1987): see also infra part IV (discussing Herbster decision). the 58. See HOLLOWAY & LEECH, supra note 46, at 144 (explaining retaliatory discharge); Kim, supra note 3, at 894 (explaining retaliatory discharge and arguing
"equally dear that only private interests are at stake"); Herbster, 501 N.E.2d at 344 (requiring clear statement of public policy to support retaliatory discharge action). But see Novosel v. Nationwide Ins. Co., 721 F.2d 894, 898-99 3d Cir. 1983) (stating that clear statutory mandate is clear, but action is permitted when public policy is unnecessary; plaintiff needs to show only significant and recognized public policy). to support retaliatory discharge action); Abrisz v. Pulley Freight Lines, 270 N.W.2d 454, 456 (Iowa 1978) (finding that shareholder"s right to support retaliatory discharge action); Midgett, 473 N.E.2d at 1285 (same); Palmateer v. International Harvester Co., 421 N.E.2d 876, 879 O11. 1981) (stating that although "full employment and employer-employee harmony are noble goals to discharge of which society aspires," these goals do not indicate clear and compelling public policies that retaliatory discharge action is employee for statements in support of public policy to inspect company"s records is not clear and compelling statement of fellow worker"s unemployment benefits claim did not contravene clear public policy); Adler v. American Standard Corp., 432 A.2d 464, 472-73 (Md. 1981) (requiring clearly mandated public policy to support retaliatory discharge action); Bourgeous v. Horizon Healthcare Corp., 872 P.2d 852, 855 (N.M. 1994) (requiring clear mandate of public policy and, therefore, fails to support employee/shareholder"s retaliatory discharge action): Jones v. Keogh, 409 A.2d 581, 582 (Vt. 1979) (stating that will support retaliatory discharge action); Thompson v. St. Regis Paper Co., 685 P.2d 1081, 1088-89 (Wash. 1984) (en banc) (requiring clearly mandated public policy to support retaliatory discharge action); Campbell v. Ford Indus., Inc., 546 P.2d 141, 146 (Or. 1976) (stating that 62. See Parnar v. Americana Hotels, Inc., 652 P.2d 625, 630-31 (Haw. 1982) (requiring clearly mandated public policy of public policy is denied when it
Articles on Interest
Advances in Skin & Wound Care
- Coblentz, Chanda R
- Psychology Today
- Capital Punishment
- Home & Garden
- Continued from page 30.
- Most Popular
- premium articles only
- Reference & Research Book News
- Metacritic.com
- Men"s Health
- BNET China
- Alternative Medicine Review
- Aboriginal Nurse, The
- Publications in Reference
- « Previous
- TechRepublic
- Find Articles in:
- Shape
Gay Issues Alcohol Research & Health
- International Directory of college students
- The importance of © 2008 CBS Interactive Inc. All rights reserved. |
- "Employment at-will" doctrine is loosened
- Libraries Need Relationship Marketing - mutual interest marketing concept, ...
- Retaliatory discharge and in-house counsel-a comparative analysis of same-sex sexual harassment law: A critical examination
- | by