noting that an employee pursuing a wrongful discharge claim under the public policy exception to at-will employment could not recover given the “dearth of evidence” to show the employer’s alleged wrongful acts
How later courts described this case
- noting that an employee pursuing a wrongful discharge claim under the public policy exception to at-will employment could not recover given the “dearth of evidence” to show the employer’s alleged wrongful acts
- dismissing claim of retaliatory discharge against private employer based on rights of free speech and association in state constitution
- noting that, even if a defendant’s conduct is “unjustifiable,” it does not necessarily rise to the “outrageous” standard; to do so, it must be “ ‘atrocious’ and ‘beyond all possible bounds of decency’ ”
- holding that the exception does not include protecting an employee’s constitutional right of free speech
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Justice KIDWELL,
dissenting.
I wholeheartedly support the presumption that employment in Idaho is “at-will” unless otherwise provided. Unlike the majority, however, I would hold that there is a narrow, but important, public policy exception to the at-will presumption for certain exercises of one’s first amendment rights. Therefore, I respectfully dissent.
In Sorensen v. Comm Tek, Inc., this Court stated the basic tenet of employment-at-will:
Unless an employee is hired pursuant to a contract which specifies the duration of the employment or limits the reasons for which an employee may be discharged, the employment is at the will of either party and the employer may terminate the relationship at any time for any reason without incurring liability.
118 Idaho 664, 666 , 799 P.2d 70, 72 (1990) (quoting Spero v. Lockwood, Inc., 111 Idaho 74, 75 , 721 P.2d 174, 175 (1986)). Public policy exceptions to employment at-will limit “the employer’s right to discharge an employee without cause when the discharge would violate public policy.” Crea v. FMC Corp., 135 Idaho 175, 178 , 16 P.3d 272, 275 (2000). The public policy exception protects at-will employees who refuse to commit illegal acts, perform important public duties, or who exercise certain rights and privileges. Sorensen, 118 Idaho at 668 , 799 P.2d at 74 (cited in Crea, 135 Idaho at 178 , 16 P.3d at 275 ). The public policy exception serves the purpose of balancing the often competing interests of society, the employer, and the employee. Crea, 135 Idaho at 178 , 16 P.3d at 275 .
As the majority has stated, public policy may be imbedded in statutes. See, e.g., Watson v. Idaho Falls Consol. Hosps., Inc., 111 Idaho 44 , 720 P.2d 632 (1986). I believe that statutes are not the only place in which one may find public policy. Indeed, one may find the most significant public policies in this state and our nation in the Idaho Constitution and the Constitution of the United States. Thus, I would hold that certain constitutional public policies deserve protection and vindication through the public policy exception to at-will employment even in the absence of a statutory enactment.
One such policy that deserves protection in the at-will employment context is the policy of encouraging participation and debate regarding issues of public concern. The Idaho Constitution makes clear that “[a]ll political power is inherent in the people. Government is instituted for their benefit, and they have the right to alter, reform, or abolish the same whenever they may deem it neces-sary_” Idaho Constitution Art. 1, § 2. In order to exercise the political power inherent in the people, the Idaho and United States constitutions endow individuals with the liberty to speak freely and participate in vigorous public debate. United States Constitution, Amend. 1; Idaho Constitution Art.l, § 9. Allowing employers to terminate employment based on an individual’s association and speech regarding public issues that may have little or nothing in connection with the employer’s business, invites employers to squelch the association, speech, and debate so necessary to our system of government. This is particularly true in the context of the myriad of small Idaho communities with only one or two prominent employers. Thus, I would hold it against public policy to discharge an employee for constitutionally-protected political speech or activities regarding a matter of public concern, provided that such speech or activity does not interfere with the employee’s job performance or the business of the employer.
The majority cites to Tiernan v. Charleston Area Med. Ctr., Inc., 203 W.Va. 135, 146-47 , 506 S.E.2d 578, 589-90 (1998), for the proposition that absent a state action, the constitutional exercise of free speech is not a public policy exception to at wall employment. It is my opinion that even absent a state action, a very narrowly drawn public policy exception to the employment at-will doctrine should apply. That narrowly drawn exception would require a two-step analysis. *182 First, did the at-will employee s speech impact the employer’s business in any manner? If so, was the employee terminated because of his or her speech? The free speech public policy exception would apply to at-will employment in the case where the employee’s speech does not impact the employer’s business and the employee was terminated for the speech. In Tieman the plaintiff was fired because she wrote a letter to the editor criticizing her employer. Under this proposed public policy exception, the plaintiffs speech clearly impacted her employer and her termination was lawful.
In this case, the evidence in the record clearly creates genuine issues of material fact regarding whether Edmondson was terminated for political speech or activities regarding a matter of public concern. Further, the record shows genuine issues regarding whether Edmondson’s speech and activities interfered with his job performance or the business of his employer. On these grounds, I would vacate summary judgment and remand this matter for further proceedings.