stating that, in general, when a statute provides a new remedy but "shows no intention to negate, either expressly or by necessary implication, a pre-existing common law remedy, the new remedy will be regarded as merely cumulative, rather than exclusive, with the result that a plaintiff may resort to either the pre-existing remedy or the new remedy"
How later courts described this case
- stating that, in general, when a statute provides a new remedy but "shows no intention to negate, either expressly or by necessary implication, a pre-existing common law remedy, the new remedy will be regarded as merely cumulative, rather than exclusive, with the result that a plaintiff may resort to either the pre-existing remedy or the new remedy"
- holding that an employee’s termination following his or her rightful resistance to a supervisor’s sexual demands or harassment was actionable in tort as a wrongful discharge
- applying general rule and holding that, even when employment discrimination statute and common law of wrongful discharge provide different procedures and remedies, statutory remedy and wrongful discharge claim may coexist in same complaint
- finding harassment statutes’ remedies inadequate because they did not account for injuries such as “anguish”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
*103 ROBERTS, J.,
concurring.
I concur in the opinion of the majority with regard to the existence of the tort of wrongful discharge. I do not believe, however, that the statutory claim for employment discrimination is before the court and I would not reach the issue of statutory damages.