holding that the court would recognize only those public policies that “are so substantial and fundamental that there can be virtually no question as to their importance for promotion of the public good”
How later courts described this case
- holding that the court would recognize only those public policies that “are so substantial and fundamental that there can be virtually no question as to their importance for promotion of the public good”
- noting, in context of public policy exception to employment-at-will rule, that "we will construe public policies narrowly and will generally utilize those based on prior legislative pronouncements or judicial decisions, applying only those principles which are so substantial and fundamental that there can be virtually no question as to their importance for promotion of the public good"
- recognizing that "public policy'" can be "de-duc{ed] in the given circumstances from constitutional or statutory provisions" (internal quotation marks omitted)
- recognizing the existence of an action for wrongful termination of an at will employee in violation of a substantial and important public policy
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
HOWE, Associate Chief Justice
(concurring):
I concur in Parts I, II, and III. I concur only in the results in Parts IV and V, deeming it not necessary or appropriate here to go beyond the written policy manual of the employer, which I view as being part of the total employment contract. Rose v. Allied Dev. Co., 719 P.2d 83 (Utah 1986). The manual stated:
Except in the situations listed below, an employee may not be dismissed unless a verbal and a written warning have been issued and a reasonable opportunity to improve performance has been provided.
The plaintiff was terminated without warning. I would remand the case to the trial court for a determination of whether the employer’s discharge of her violated its own policy manual or whether she was properly discharged for unreasonably refusing to take a polygraph test or for failing a polygraph test, which grounds do not require a previous warning.
HALL, C.J., concurs in the concurring opinion of HOWE, Associate Chief Justice.