finding question of fact when employment at-will language added to manual after plaintiff's employment
How later courts described this case
- finding question of fact when employment at-will language added to manual after plaintiff's employment
- employee who alleges retaliatory discharge for whistleblowing has burden of proving their claim by clear and convincing evidence
- “Conduct of an employer violative of public policy and giving rise to a cause of action has been recognized when an employee is discharged in retaliation ... for exercising rights under labor-management relations statutes, ..., and for various other violations of public policy interests.”
- question of law exists when no evidence is presented on an issue or when the evidence is undisputed and the minds of reasonable persons may not draw differing inferences or arrive at opposing conclusions
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Abbott, J.,
concurring: Based on the record before us, I concur in the result. I disagree with the majority that the jury instruction on retaliatory discharge was not erroneous. The word “solely” unduly restricts the employee’s cause of action for retaliatory discharge.
It will be a rare employer who admits the reason an employee is terminated is in retaliation for filing a workers compensation claim. Some other reason will always be expressed and, when a jury is instructed the employee can only recover if the discharge was “solely” because the employee filed a workers compensation claim, the employee simply will not prevail on a retaliatory discharge claim.
I would not reverse in this case, however, because the employee failed to submit a proposed instruction in writing on the subject.