holding that non-outsider status is immaterial where the allegations in the complaint show defendants’ motives for procuring the plaintiff’s termination were unrelated to their business interest
How later courts described this case
- holding that non-outsider status is immaterial where the allegations in the complaint show defendants’ motives for procuring the plaintiff’s termination were unrelated to their business interest
- holding that plaintiffs complaint stated a valid claim against defendant for “wrongfully discharging her from her employment in retaliation for her refusal to testify falsely or incompletely”
- holding that the plaintiff's complaint stated an enforceable claim for wrongful discharge where the employee was wrongfully discharged in retaliation for refusing to testify falsely in a medical malpractice case
- finding that termination contravened public policy when termination was based on employee's refusal to falsely testify against her employer
Written by the judges who cited it.
Later courts went against this
Overruled on other grounds by Kurtzman v. Applied Analytical Industries, Inc., 347 N.C. 329 (1997)
328 S.E.2d 818, 826-27 (N.C. Ct. App. 1985), overruled on other grounds by Kurtzman v. Applied Analytical Indus., Inc., 493 S.E.2d 420
The opinion
Judge Arnold
concurring in the result.
I concur in that portion of the majority opinion which holds that the trial court properly dismissed the plaintiff’s complaint against the defendant Farmer. I also concur in those portions which hold that the plaintiff has stated a claim for breach of contract and for tortious interference with contract.
*350 While I do not agree with the reasoning found in the wrongful discharge portion of the majority’s opinion, I do believe that under the peculiar facts of this case the plaintiff has arguably stated a claim based upon her discharge by the defendant Duke Hospital. While I would reach this result through a different approach, inasmuch as this case involves such important issues and since it has been before this Court for over seven months, more than twice as long as allowed by our rules, I will not delay it any longer by writing an in-depth concurring opinion. I will simply state that I concur in the result.